Forced Labour Europe

REPORT
Detecting and
tackling forced
labour in Europe
Nick Clark
Based on studies in nine European countries, this

report considers how those exposed to forced
labour are supported across Europe.
The study looks at a number of aspects of forced labour:
evidence for its presence;
the way in which it is treated by national and international law;
how it is perceived and understood by authorities, media and public;
its relationship with trafficking and the problems this presents;
how and where it is detected;
government, regulators and civil society responses to it;
the provision of support to those exposed to it;
how affected workers themselves respond.
It draws conclusions about the manner in which forced labour is understood
and approached in Europe, and how this can guide responses in the UK.
June 2013
www.jrf.org.uk
Contents

Executive summary
03
1 Introduction
2 The presence of forced labour in Europe
3 Forced labour and the law
4 Recognising forced labour
5 What remedies are available?
6 Supporting those subject to forced labour
7 Conclusions
8 Implications for the UK
05
09
18
27
40
48
57
62
Notes
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Acknowledgements
About the author
65
66
68
69
73
74
List of tables
1 Selected labour exploitation indicators relevant to
forced labour
2 Forced labour cases prosecuted or investigated in nine
EU countries
3 Industries where forced labour is referenced in
national reports
List of boxes
1 Trafficking and forced labour in German strawberry fields
2 An asparagus criminal in the Netherlands
3 French seasonal workers supported in targeted litigation
4 Hollywood awareness raising in Poland
5 Campaigning against forced labour in private households
6 Chinese forced labour in Spain
7 Latvia and Italy: cross-border legal cooperation
8 Housing and forced labour in the Netherlands
9 Mobilising in Italy for the regularisation of building workers
10 Berry pickers in Sweden: a case study in forced labour
07
10
16
12
13
23
28
30
32
35
37
42
51
Executive summary
This report considers how those exposed to forced labour are supported
in nine EU member states: France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, the
Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden. Forced labour occurs when a worker
cannot freely choose to leave an abusive employer, but officialdom may
associate it exclusively with trafficking and unlawful crossing of borders
activities that in turn are conflated with the abuse of women and children
forced into sexual activities.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates the number in
forced labour in Europe to be 880,000, but we found few reliable national
studies to confirm this; there is hard evidence confirming its presence,
however, including data on numbers of cases prosecuted or investigated
under trafficking for labour exploitation, or associated classifications. They
illustrate the worrying presence of forced labour practices across all the nine
countries studied. The main findings of the research were as follows:
Migration is a major source of vulnerability, although not in all cases.
Domestic service, construction, agriculture, hospitality, cleaning, food
manufacturing/processing, and textiles and clothing were frequently
identified as industries where forced labour occurred.
Numerous international instruments relate to the suppression of forced
labour, such as the Council of Europe Convention on Action against
Trafficking in Human Beings and the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights.
Forced labour is imperfectly understood, and therefore not widely
recognised as a phenomenon occurring in the developed world. Where it
is acknowledged, it is approached as being caused by the vulnerability of
victims rather than by deficiencies in the regulation of labour markets
and the economy.
Although forced labour practices do not always take place across borders,
they often do, and so international initiatives were found, some focusing
on awareness raising and crime reporting, others involving more detailed
cooperation, over prosecutions, for example.
Examples of worker resistance were found in nearly all the countries
researched, in the form of self-organisation, strikes, litigation and
demonstrations. These were a catalyst for support, policy development or
simply publicity for the problem of forced labour practices.
Fresh initiatives have begun, such as pilot inspections of private
households with domestic staff, or the development of international
cooperation between law enforcement bodies to deal with abusive
employers operating across borders. The need for organisations to
respond supportively and effectively to resistance organised by the
workers themselves is also being recognised.
03
Those who have experienced forced labour are likely to be working in

undeclared jobs or even (by virtue of their immigration status) unlawful
ones. In some countries, this means that their contracts are unenforceable
by inspectors or through application to the courts. A further hurdle may
be the processes for restitution themselves only in some cases can an
intermediary, such as a trade union, conduct a case on the workers behalf.
Although excessive working hours features regularly in reports of forced
labour, there is little evidence of inspection or enforcement of working
time rights being used to detect or prevent it.
Workers may be exposed to further difficulties even after their
exploitation has been detected where employers have provided
accommodation, loss of a job can render the worker homeless, and their
status as irregular may also leave them outside state healthcare and
social security.
A focus in the national reports was the provision of support relating
to immigration status, reflecting the close (but by no means exclusive)
relationship between migration and forced labour.
The twin aims of enforcing immigration controls and submitting trafficking

perpetrators to criminal sanctions take precedence over protecting the
employment or human rights of those subjected to forced labour. This offers
little to those who are not migrants, or who may be EU nationals. Criminal
sanctions are deployed in defence of the public good, but if this prevents
or delays unduly the redress most immediately needed by those subject to
forced labour, it is no surprise that they may decline to participate in such
proceedings.
Many government agencies, labour inspectors, advice organisations and
trade unions are often unfamiliar with the indicators of forced labour. This
lack of knowledge is even more marked among the media and public in
general.
The key lesson is that the stronger the extent of labour market regulation
and associated inspection and enforcement powers, the more likely it is that
forced labour practices will be detected, and that those subjected to it will be
offered potentially acceptable routes to restitution.
Detecting and tackling forced labour in Europe
04
1Introduction
Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded
on the indivisible universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality
and solidarity. (Preamble to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union)
This report considers how those exposed to forced labour are formally and
actually supported in nine European Union (EU) member states: France,
Germany, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden. It
is not intended to be a review of the prevalence or nature of forced labour,
or of detailed legal provisions. Rather, it summarises the international legal
measures outlawing forced labour, and how they have been implemented at
national level, illustrating the current situation with reports on the range of
legal actions (civil and criminal) as well as other responses by state bodies,
trade unions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
Forced labour takes place within national boundaries. States, and various
actors within them, are therefore of great significance. Their responses are
shaped both by internationally established programmes and standards and by
national histories.
The main historical contexts inspiring the prohibition of forced labour are:
the abolition of slavery, as in France which outlawed it in 1848 but
where, despite ratifications of the 1926 and 1956 International Labour
Organization (ILO) Anti-Slavery Conventions, no specific offences were
created in national law until 2003;
the response to the experience of forced labour under fascism;
the emergence of a post-Second World War human rights discourse, as
in the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms whose Article 4 prohibited slavery and forced
labour, and more recently in the 2000 United Nations (UN) Palermo
Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in people, especially
women and children, which was adopted alongside the overarching
Convention against Transnational Organised Crime.1
To contextualise what can be learned for practice in the UK from that in

other EU member states, we first recall the recent positions taken by the
current Coalition UK government, which has decided not to ratify the ILO
Domestic Workers Convention. A government spokesman told TheGuardian
newspaper:
The UK already provides comprehensive employment and social
protections to domestic workers and we do not consider it appropriate
or practical to extend criminal health and safety law, including
05
inspections, to private households employing domestic workers.

(Guardian, 2011)
The government also decided to opt out of the EU directive on sanctions
and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals.
Immigration Minister Damien Green explained:
There were significant aspects of the draft directive which the UK did
not support. These included the creation of additional administrative
burdens on both employers and the public sector in requiring
employers to notify the authorities every time they recruit new third
country national employees and in requiring compliance inspections.
The directive also extended the legal definition of employment in a
manner, creating further costs and liabilities to both employers and
the authorities. This would mean, for instance, that enterprises utilising
subcontractors might be held liable for instances of illegal employment
by the subcontractor. The directive also guaranteed additional rights
to illegally-staying employees, including provision of back payments
where an employee has earned less than the minimum national wage,
which would be difficult to administer and would send the wrong message
by rewarding breaches of immigration legislation. (Written Statement to
the House of Commons, 24May 2011; emphasis added)
This report shows how other countries have judged it best to respond to the
challenge of forced labour, and what that can show us about the adequacy of
the UK response.
What is forced labour?

Forced labour is defined by ILO Forced Labour Convention No. 29 (1930) as
work or service which is exacted...under the menace of any penalty, and for
which [the worker] has not offered himself voluntarily. In several countries
its juridical presence is related to four preconditions: deprivation of liberty;
vulnerability on the part of the worker; the workers agreement or otherwise
to the conditions; and the presence of exploitation. The terms vulnerability
and exploitation are, however, subject to imprecision and therefore a variety
of interpretations.
Skrivankova (2010, p.6) argues that the key precondition is the freedom
of the worker to leave the abusive employment. The involuntariness
of forced labour relates to the freedom of choice. As the same Joseph
Rowntree Foundation (JRF) research suggests, confirming the approach
adopted by Anderson and Rogaly (2004), forced labour should thus be seen
at one end of a spectrum of offences against employment and human rights,
where at least two of the strong labour exploitation indicators identified by
the ILO and European Commission (2009) are present.
Although conceived of as 67 operational indicators for trafficking in
human beings, the ILO and European Commission indicators also constitute
a helpful description of forced labour practices (ILO, 2009). They are grouped
in six categories, with some indicators being described as strong and others
medium or weak. The stronger indicators directly relevant to employment
rights and hence to forced labour (whether involving trafficking or not) are
shown in Table 1 below.
Forced labour is thus best understood as concerning workers who cannot
freely choose to leave an abusive employer, and the indicators above provide
06
Table 1: Selected labour exploitation indicators relevant to forced labour

Main category Strong indicator Medium indicator
Deceptive
recruitment
Deceived about
the nature of the
job, location or
employer
Deceived about conditions of work

Deceived about content or legality of work contract
Deceived about travel and recruitment conditions
Deceived about wages/earnings
Coercive
recruitment
Violence on
victims
Confiscation of documents
Withholding of money
Recruitment
by abuse of
vulnerability
Control of exploiters
Economic reasons
Exploitative
conditions of
work
Excessive
workingdays or
hours
Bad living conditions

Hazardous work
Low or no salary
No respect of labour laws or contract signed
No social protection (contract, social insurance, etc.)
Very bad working conditions
Wage manipulation
Coercion
Debt bondage
Isolation,
confinement or
surveillance
Threat to impose even worse working conditions

Threats of violence against victim
Abuse of
vulnerability
Dependency on exploiters
Difficulty living in an unknown area
Relationship with authorities/legal status
Source: ILO (2009)
a useful heuristic list of what constitutes abuse. An example of the types

of abuse detected can be found in the Netherlands Labour Inspectorates
annual report for 2010 (Arbeitsinspectie, 2011), which reported identifying
2,397 illegal workers and 564 violations of the Minimum Wages Act from
among 1,263 complaints about labour conditions and 9,440 complaints
about violations of the Aliens Employment Act and the minimum wage.
Yet in much of Europe, when the term forced labour is used, it is often
exclusively associated with trafficking and unlawful cross-border mobility
activities that, in turn, are often conflated with the abuse of women and
children suborned into sexual activities. This can lead to a policy focus on this
type of abuse, rather than on the less evocative phenomenon of work that
involves deception, coercion and/or exploitative practices in the workplace.
This report
Forced Labour in Europe focuses on policies and actions taken in relation
to workers who have been exposed to the multiple practices identified
by Skrivankova (2010) and by the ILO and European Commission (2009),
whether or not their experiences fall within the national legal interpretations
of forced labour. We do not use the term victim, as this carries a normative
assumption of powerlessness, consistent with a focus on sexual exploitation.
Our aim is to throw light on the ways in which existing institutions and
actors within Europe provide support for workers subject to forced labour.
The nine countries studied provided a balanced sample of older and
more recent EU members, of larger and smaller states, and of different
legal and employment relations systems. They are the four EU founder
member states (France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands), and more
Introduction
07
recent accession countries from Europes north (Sweden), south (Spain),

east (Latvia and Poland) and west (Ireland). The sample thus included the
five largest EU labour markets outside the UK, and countries from each of
the EUs five main employment relations systems described by Visser (2009:
49) as: organised corporatism (Sweden), social partnership (Germany and
the Netherlands), state-centred (Spain, France and Italy), liberal (Ireland) and
mixed (Latvia and Poland).
The project was led by Nick Clark of the Working Lives Research Institute
(WLRI) of London Metropolitan University with national partners in six
other countries, whose details are presented in Appendix A. It involved three
phases, carried out between February 2011 and July 2012:
Phase 1: Producing national reports structured around an agreed template
on the policy, context and debates on forced labour for each country
(available from the JRF website at www.jrf.org.uk). These identify official and
NGO data concerning forced labour, and the presence (or absence) of certain
labour market features associated in the literature with the potential for
forced labour:
a) Certain migrant groups the undocumented or those with restricted
rights to work (such as migrants in particularly exploitative industries)
b) Particular employment relationships false self-employment, work in
private households, undeclared work and agency work (particularly for
unregistered agencies)
c) Exposed vulnerable individuals those with mental impairments and
the economically vulnerable (such as those who do not have access to
national social security safety nets)
d) Extreme exploitation contexts such as organised begging and theft, often
considered components of relationships tantamount to forced labour.
Phase 2: Researching and writing up one case study of good or illustrative

practice for each country (edited versions of which are included in this report
within the boxes).
Phase 3: Conducting a comparative analysis of the national reports and case
studies and writing this report.
The full country reports and case studies are available at www.workinglives.
org. Further details of the methodology are included in Appendix B at the
end of this report.
Section 2 examines what data there is on the extent and distribution
of forced labour across Europe, and in particular, in the nine countries
studied. Section 3 looks at the international and national legal context, and
how forced labour practices might be penalised under various types of law,
followed by a discussion, in Section 4, of how responses to forced labour are
framed at international, national and local level, before going on to describe
in Section 5 the remedies that might be available to those exposed to
forced labour. Section 6 sets out support that goes beyond the employment
relationship of those experiencing forced labour, followed by general
conclusions in Section 7 and a final section on the implications for the fight
against forced labour in the UK. Throughout the report the case studies
prepared as part of the national reports are summarised in a series of boxes,
as practical illustrations of aspects of Europes responses to forced labour.
08
2 The presence of
forced labour in
Europe
While the EU claims to be founded on values such
as human dignity and freedom, our studies show
that evidence of forced labour abounds and could
be found in each of the nine countries examined.
This section discusses the sources of information
available and what they can tell us about the
probable presence, extent and distribution of forced
labour in the EU.
Sources of data
IN 2012, the ILO prepared a fresh, global estimate of the number of people
in forced labour (ILO, 2012). Their methodology involved a major review
of all media reports and local and national government sources, as well as
accessing NGOs, trade unions and employers organisations. This led them to
estimate that in the 10years between 2002 and 2010, 20.9million people
were in forced labour at any given time. The range for the estimate was
between 19.5 and 23.3million, representing about three out of every 1,000
people. Their estimate of the rate for Europe was lower, but at 1.4 per 1,000
of the EU population, this still amounts to 880,000 workers. Of these, the
ILO suggests one-fifth were subjected to sexual exploitation and 70per cent
to labour exploitation, with most of the remainder being involved in forced
begging. No separate country-level figures were published, although the
methodology was tested at the national level in several countries.
Our more modest research of selected government and NGO sources in
nine EU member states finds that while there are few reliable studies of the
wider extent of forced labour, there is hard evidence confirming its presence
and locations. Sources include data on numbers of cases prosecuted
or investigated under trafficking for labour exploitation, or associated
09
classifications, as shown in Table 2 and, significantly as we shall see, suggest

an association between better developed systems for identifying and
recording cases of forced labour and the quality of available support systems.
However, even where short time series do exist, local experts suggest
the data tends to understate the problem and cannot reliably show trends,
nor, for methodological reasons, can the ILO estimates referred to above.
Thus increasing numbers of detections or prosecutions are as likely to be
associated with improved techniques and awareness as with changes in the
frequency of abuse related to forced labour. Equally, the level of detection of
forced labour is clearly related to the level of resources devoted to it.
Table 2 has been derived from the national reports. The national experts
quote figures provided from a variety of sources, which may not be directly
comparable. Some are extracted from official data for trafficking detections
or prosecutions for trafficking for labour exploitation. Others originate from
NGOs providing support to various groups of workers (and others). Taken
Table 2: Forced labour cases prosecuted or investigated in nine EU countries
Country
Cases
P/year
Description and source
224 cases
22
Completed cases involving charges of

trafficking for labour exploitation (BKA and
Destatis)
Germany
200610
Italy
200306
5,000
1,500
Trafficked for labour exploitation (Italia Caritas)
200305
516
172
Investigations for slavery (Article 600 of the

Penal Code)
2007
76
Cases of severe labour exploitation making use

of social protection (Save the Children, Italy)
2008
163
As above
2011
Complaints of abuse made by domestic

workers in diplomatic households. Three
references to Anti-Trafficking Unit
200609
250+
Ireland
62+
Exploited migrant workers assisted by MRCI
Latvia
2010
716
Fines issued for illegal employment in

construction (state Labour Inspectorate)
184
Fines in processing industries
175
Fines in arts and entertainment
132
Fines in wholesale distribution
124
Fines in personal services
104
Fines in agriculture, forestry, fisheries
2010
400600
Trafficking victims (primarily for prostitution),

police estimates
2008
Forced labour investigations
2009
28
Forced labour investigations (two convictions

for labour trafficking)
21
Court decisions on labour exploitation

(10acquittals)
Sweden
Spain
2009
(continued)
10
Table 2 (continued)
Country
Cases
P/year
Description and source
19952009
3,000
200
Trafficking victims (all types of exploitation)

identified by Polish prosecutors
2010
500
workplaces
200610
23
Poland
Inspections detecting abuses of migrant

workers rights; 170 workers underpaid
(Labour Inspectorate)
4
Assisted victims of forced labour under

programme for assisting victims/witnesses of
trafficking
Netherlands
200709
161
Victims of trafficking for labour exploitation

(CoMensha)
2009
120
Various victims of trafficking and exploitation

of the vulnerable (OCLTI)
2008
84
As above
2008
32
Non-payment of, or manifestly inadequate,

wages due to vulnerability (Ministry of Justice)
117
Working or living conditions contrary to

human dignity due to vulnerability (Ministry of
Justice)
24

63

Justice)
32

45

Justice)
81
Domestic workers assisted by CCEM
France
2007
2006
2010
Note: Reports where it is likely two or more strong indicators (ILO, 2009) of labour exploitation
are present are shaded dark grey; those where it is possible one or more indicators are present are
shaded light grey; reports where it is likely at least one indicator applies are left un-shaded.
MRCI: Migrant Rights Centre Ireland; CoMensha: national coordinating body dealing with trafficking;
OCLTI: Central Office for Combating Illegal Work; CCEM: Committee Against Modern Slavery.
together, however, they illustrate the worrying presence of forced labour

practices across all nine countries studied, confirming the ubiquity of forced
labour identified by the ILO, if not its magnitude. The table attempts to show
how each of these sets of data is likely to relate to the forced labour indicators
identified by the ILO and European Commission (ILO, 2009) (see Table 1).
Variation in national legal and social systems also leads to different types
of exploitation being featured. In case studies from Germany (see Box 1)
and the Netherlands (see Box 2), trafficking for the purposes of labour
exploitation is clearly highlighted, while according to the national reports,
in Ireland and Poland forced labour may also be taking place where cases of
exploitation of migrant workers are identified. Other countries have specific
national categories of unacceptable exploitation where, as in France, for
example, pay and working conditions may be deemed incompatible with
human dignity, and which probably overlap with forced labour but are not
entirely contiguous with it.
The presence of forced labour in Europe
11
Different national economic contexts also play a major part in shaping the
potential for widespread labour abuse. In Italy, for example, the substantial
underground economy supports widespread irregularity. Over one in ten
of the workforce is classified as irregularly employed and while most are
legal residents, as many as 400,000 workers comply neither with residence
nor employment contract requirements. Italian research suggests many
employers of undocumented workers prefer not to help them get papers to
maintain these workers in a condition of being liable to be blackmailed at the
socioeconomic as well as psychological level (Carchedi, 2010: 53).
Box 1: Trafficking and forced labour in German strawberry

fields
In 2007, a German strawberry field owner (a police officer on parental
leave) in Augsburg, Bavaria, recruited 100 Romanian workers through
a Romanian-speaking German citizen. The workers were transported
to Germany for the strawberry harvest. Romanian nationals do not
require a residence permit to enter Germany, but a work permit was
required during the transitional period of Romanias EU membership.
With it the seasonal workers should have had the same legal rights and
wages as German workers in strawberry fields, including the application
of collective wage agreements and appropriate measures for the
protection of workers.
However, the defendant ignored all legislation when employing
the Romanian seasonal workers, and they were not provided with
employment contracts. He had previously been prosecuted for doing the
same with Polish workers.
The Romanian workers had been offered 1.80 for each 5kg box of
strawberries picked, and were promised that they could earn up to
5.50 an hour if they worked hard. Upon starting their duties it became
very clear to them that it was not possible to earn 5.50 per hour, and
they therefore attempted to negotiate with their employer. Due to the
approaching strawberry harvest, the employer appeared to accept their
demands.
They worked for at least 110hours over 12 days in June 2007 and
managed 116 boxes. They should have received 5.16 per hour and at
least 208.80 for the 12 days. However, the employer deducted 50
for subsistence (food). Some workers worked up to 160hours over
16days and received only 150 compared to the wage rates in the
sectoral collective agreement, by which they should have received 816.
The employer was aware the Romanian workers did not have enough
cash with them to survive, abused his position and took advantage of
their predicament to secure his strawberry harvest. He failed to pay
their full wages, and gave them little option but to spend the little
money they had buying food from his ex-partners shop.
The local Augburger Allgemeine paper then published an article that
was critical of the conditions of these Romanian seasonal labourers.
Customs officers raided the field the next day and found only 55, the
rest having disappeared. They arrested the employer and a Romanianspeaking German citizen (allegedly present only as an interpreter).
12
The customs officers report stated that the farmer had failed to provide
the workers with adequate accommodation or essential necessities such
as mattresses, bedding or fridges. They had been left to live in deplorable
conditions in containers near the strawberry field, with inadequate
access to food and drink, and no water connection for the preparation
of meals or bathing. During an inspection of the field it was recorded
that there were only seven double cookers to cater for 100 people. In
addition the electric installation was faulty, pipelines were partially open
and there was no fire prevention equipment: the workers were living in
overcrowded and unsafe accommodation.
The employer was sentencedto three years and three months in prison
for human trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation. The judge
justified the sentence by focusing on the helplessness of the workers
arising from them being in a foreign country, a specific provision for this
being made in Section 233 of the Penal Code. The decisive criteria were
the workers lack of knowledge of the German language; their lack of
cash, preventing them leaving the field, and making them dependent on
the farmer; and the farmers surveillance of the workers and their lack of
opportunity to leave Germany.
The farmer was also guilty because he employed foreign workers
without permission (under Section 11 of the Clandestine Employment
Act). The Romanian workers lawyer took further legal action against the
employer through an employment tribunal to recover the outstanding
pay of about 20,000.
The judge determined that the farmer had benefited from his harsh
piecework rate and by not making the promised advance payments. The
employer had also failed to inform the workers about their rights. The
judge commented that, None of the Romanians had a clue of the legal
position of an employee in German legislation. They had received no
information about wage rates. The judge insisted that the defendants
were involved in exploitive commercial employment and showed
that Section 233 could be used not only for trafficking for labour
exploitation, but for all relevant cases in the context of forced labour.
The Romanian-speaking German citizen was sentenced to two years in
prison for assisting with exploiting people under 21years old, and aiding
and abetting the employment of foreigners without approval. In addition
he had to pay a fine of 10,000 to the state and 1,000 to each of the
three Romanian witnesses who, significantly, after the court case, were
permitted to stay and work in Germany.
Author: Janroj Keles
Box 2: An asparagus criminal in the Netherlands

An asparagus farmer continued to illegally employ and accommodate
foreign workers after already being fined over half a million euros
between 2005 and 2009. After tripartite discussions (driehoeksoverleg)
between the mayor, the chief of police and the public prosecutor, the
municipality took action under the Housing Act, and when the premises
were evacuated on 15May 2009, 55 workers of Romanian, Polish and
Portuguese nationalities were found. The mayor declared their conditions
were reminiscent more of a form of slavery than a modern business.
13
Under public pressure, the Public Prosecution Service began criminal

investigations into trafficking for labour exploitation, identifying about
70 workers, three-quarters men and one-quarter women, 15 of whom
were eventually interviewed after their return to their home countries.
The workers had not been informed about the B9 procedure to
provide support and temporary residence for subjects and witnesses to
trafficking, nor had they been registered with CoMensha (the national
coordination body dealing with trafficking). All the interviewed workers
later received a letter in their own language with information about the
possibility of joining the criminal proceedings and submitting a claim.
Five did so.
Although they had a claim for unpaid wages, 36 Romanian workers
preferred to return home without their money. The municipality
arranged for a bus, but required them to sign an agreement stating
that they would repay the cost. Twenty workers chose to remain at
work, hoping to be paid at the end of the season, and the municipality
gave permission for them to be housed in tents at the farm. The UWV
(responsible for handling social security remittances) then granted
35 work permit applications made by the farmer, despite the pending
criminal prosecution.
On 4October 2011 the farmer was sentenced by the District Court
to 30 months imprisonment for labour exploitation and to pay 7,200
compensation to each of the claimants.
The fact that the farmer was a serial offender known to some of the
authorities for years, as well as the decision to put witnesses on a
bus and ask them to pay for their own journeys home, indicates poor
coordination and knowledge of the law in relation to trafficking for
labour exploitation.
Authors: Mijke Houwezjil and Conny Rijken
Originating countries
Not all those subjected to forced labour are undocumented or, indeed,
migrants of any kind. Thus the Netherlands report cited two cases where
nationals vulnerable through mental incapacity were subject to exploitation,
while the Irish report recalled the Magdalene Laundries, where young
women used to be made to work by a religious order. However, migration is
a major source of vulnerability, and using media and court and other official
reports, the countries of origin of those who experience forced labour can
often be distinguished. This information may, however, be distorted either by
the expectations of the investigatory authorities or of the media, who may
be more likely to look for or identify forced labour among some communities
than others, or when workers might deliberately misidentify their countries
of origin.
Subject to these qualifications, in the nine EU member states researched,
the countries of origin most frequently cited in the national reports as
supplying forced labour were Bulgaria, Poland and Romania (within the EU),
and China, Morocco and Turkey (from outside the EU). Other countries of
origin referred to by only one national report were Algeria, Egypt, Moldova,
Thailand and Tunisia. In these single country references there might be a
14
particular sector connection, as with Thai berry pickers in northern Sweden

(see Box 10) and Egyptian strawberry pickers in Parete Province, Italy.
Figures on trafficking collated by the EU Commission show a similar
picture, with most states reporting that the majority of trafficking victims
came from Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary, with the major nonEU source countries being Nigeria, Vietnam, Ukraine, Russia and China
(European Commission, 2012).
This mix of EU and non-EU originating countries for forced labour
is confirmed by the ILO (2012). Its figures show the majority of cases
involve citizens of other EU countries, most of whom (with the exception
of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens) now have a right to work anywhere
in the EU. This suggests that while uncertain immigration status may be a
contributory factor to workers vulnerability to exploitation and forced labour,
it is not an essential one.
This distribution and frequency of reports of non-nationals subject to
employment abuse follows population movements. According to Eurostat,
the largest group of all resident non-nationals in the EU comes from Turkey
(7.2per cent), followed by Romania (6.6per cent) and Morocco (5.7per cent)
(see http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu). Between 2001 and 2010 Romanian
citizens had shown the largest increase, followed by Polish and Chinese
citizens.
Not all of the reports provided any numerical breakdown or comparison
between countries of origin, but in the Netherlands, the 2010 Labour
Inspectorate report identified 25per cent of workers in illegal employment
as originating from Bulgaria, 12per cent from China and 9per cent from
Turkey. Half of the workers considered underpaid originated from new
EU member states, one-fifth were Dutch citizens and nearly one-third
originated from non-EU countries.
In 2008 and 2009, of 291 migrant workers who received social assistance
through various projects across Italy, most came from five countries: Romania
(50), Morocco (30), Egypt (28) India (24) and China (20). A study of 82
workers given legal assistance because of their labour exploitation between
2007 and 2010 identified three of the same countries: Egypt (66), Morocco
(1) and China (1), and two others, Moldova (10) and Algeria (2).
In France, the Committee Against Modern Slavery (CCEM) that works
primarily with domestic workers in the Paris area reported that of those it
advised in 2010, half came from West Africa, just under a third from Africa
north of the Sahara, and 10per cent from East Africa, with another 8per
cent from Asia and 5per cent from Europe. An NGO in South West France
working with seasonal agricultural workers reported workers from Tunisia
and Morocco as being most susceptible to exploitation.
Employer origins
What can be said about the countries of origin of the employers of forced
labour? It is often assumed that forced labour is conducted by foreign
nationals on their own co-nationals. However, our research suggests that
this may be an over-simplification. The Spanish national report (produced
for this research), using figures from the Public Prosecutors Office, suggests
that only in a minority of cases were the employers co-nationals of the
workers, with a large majority (70per cent) being Spanish-origin. The Italian
case study also cites a study of 82 cases of extreme exploitation, where all
the employers except three were found to be Italian (Bussadori etal., 2009).
The common factor to forced labour is thus the nature of the work and of
the workplace and the employeremployee relationship, not their nationality.
In France, both worker and abuser were found to be French in 30per cent
15
of cases of exploitation (CNCDH, 2009). There is also some evidence that

in certain industries exploitation, even if it is by co-nationals, forms part
of a supply chain reaching into more prominent national or multinational
enterprises. This is dealt with in more detail below.
Industries involved
The work and workplaces that appear most likely to tolerate forced labour
are where work is physically hard and where workers are either isolated from
each other, or work in small groups or workplaces, and where they are reliant
on the employer to provide accommodation. The industries most frequently
mentioned in the nine national reports as experiencing instances of abusive
employment relationships are listed in Table 3.
These may, however, only be the industries in which the authorities
expect forced labour, and where it is therefore more likely to be detected or
identified. Actions taken by enforcement bodies to detect illegal work and
irregular migration in 2008 in France, for example, prioritised workplaces in
construction, agriculture and hospitality.
The EU Commission, in their recent strategy document on human
trafficking, also identified (in addition to sex work) agriculture, construction
and tourism as being sectors with a higher risk of labour exploitation, and
reported that Europol, while not regarding tourism as a risk, add textiles,
healthcare and domestic service (European Commission, 2012). Forced
labour may thus also take place in small corners of other industries that are
less in the legal spotlight.
Supply chains
Forced labour is not taking place solely on the fringes of the economy, but
also in other sectors, where we see forced labour appearing in chains of
value which lead into significant sectors of the economy. The berries picked
by exploited migrant labour in Sweden, for example (see Box 10) go into the
pharmaceutical and health food industries. The clothing workshops described
in the Spanish case study (see Box 6) are making goods for major fashion
labels, while the fields of Bouches-du-Rhne, where the seasonal workers,
aided by CODETRAS labour (see Box 3), produce 30per cent of all French
tomatoes, 20per cent of the salad and over 36per cent of the courgettes.
Unions in both Germany and Ireland have complained about slavery in
construction, sometimes on major projects, while the Italian case study (see
Box 9) identifies exploitation and forced labour practices as being systematic
in a major construction firm.
Table 3: Industries where forced labour is referenced in national reports

Sector
References in national reports
Domestic service
Construction
Agriculture
Hotels, restaurants and catering
Cleaning
Food manufacturing/processing
Textiles and clothing
16
Immediate exploiters of forced labour might be hard to pursue for

restitution due to their mobility or insolvency, but measures in some
countries to make main contractors responsible for their subcontractors
wages or social security contributions might show the way to offer those
subject to forced labour the prospect of recovering unpaid wages. A recent
study of 28 European countries found eight that made main contractors
liable for the wages of all workers in their subcontractors, including from
the studied countries, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. Taking Italy
as an example, rules first adopted in 2003 (as part of a wider, fundamental
review of labour regulations known as the Biagi review) have since been
strengthened. They now extend joint and several liability for wages and social
security contributions throughout subcontracting chains, and claimants have
up to two years to present claims (Jorens etal., 2012). It is only in the event
that none of the liable parties is able to pay that the workers may turn to the
state-run insolvency fund (Fondo di Garanzia). The notion of worker in this
case includes undocumented workers, but those illicitly subcontracted are, in
any case, considered to be the responsibility of the main contracting party.
17
3 Forced labour
and the law
EU member states are largely subject to similar
international regulatory frameworks regarding
immigration, employment and human rights,
although among European regulations, the UK
and Ireland do not apply all the Schengen Area
procedures,2 and the UK has, of course, an optout on the maximum working week. However,
the states covered by this report differed in their
approaches to labour exploitation, and to forced
labour in particular. These differences arise from the
historical context in which forced labour is viewed,
and to different roles for labour market regulation.
While EU directives and the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR) are enforceable in law,
the ILO conventions are much less so. States must
ratify them in order to be bound by them, and even
then there are few powers to enforce them; indeed,
enforcement action on forced labour has only once
been enacted (against Burma), in the form of a
proposal that states be invited to take appropriate
measures.
In this section we briefly review the principal international regulations,

conventions and directives related to forced labour, and then we examine the
national approaches and the problems they encounter. Some forced labour
practices would be unlawful or illegal in most states, even without there
being a specific offence of forced labour, such as non-payment of wages
18
(usually, but not always, a civil offence) or kidnapping (a criminal offence), for
example.
The issues examined here are separated from those covered in the
subsequent section on support, which includes actions taken outside of
judicial processes (although they might include actions aimed to support
those wishing to take up legal claims).
International regulation
There are four main measures or groups of international regulation covering
forced labour and the practices surrounding it, and that apply to European
states. Some apply further (the European Convention on Human Rights, for
example, applies to all Council of Europe states), and some are optional
ILO conventions apply only if a decision to ratify has been made by a specific
country.
European Convention on Human Rights 1950

Article 4 prohibits slavery, servitude and the requirement to perform forced
or compulsory labour (exempting certain circumstances such as prisons, the
military and national emergencies).
Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in

Human Beings (2005)
This prohibits both national and transnational trafficking, defined to include
recruitment and transportation by means of coercion or deception for the
purpose of exploitation. Where coercion is used the apparent consent of
the victim to the exploitation shall be irrelevant. While its remit includes
trafficking within national borders, much of it is devoted to border controls
and repatriation. There is provision for compensation for victims from
perpetrators, and it requires states to provide accommodation, psychological
and material assistance, emergency medical treatment, translation and
interpretation services, advice on legal rights, representation and access to
education for children.
UN actions
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) includes in Article
4 the statement that No-one shall be held in slavery or servitude. This
is generally seen as the foundation on which subsequent human rights
legislation has been built.
The Palermo Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking
in persons (2000). This is an element of the Convention against
Transnational Organised Crime, and primarily addresses offences against
women and children; it came into force in 2003. It defines trafficking
in persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring
or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other
forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of
power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of
payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control
over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. It considers
exploitation to involve forced labour or services, slavery or practices
similar to slavery. Repatriation may not be used for those at risk if
returned, for those participating in prosecutions and on humanitarian
grounds. Confiscation of the proceeds of trafficking and related offences
to be used for the benefit of trafficked people is possible. States signing
Forced labour and the law
19
the protocol are required to consider providing victims with housing,

counselling, information, healthcare and opportunities for education and
employment. Its terminology has been widely used as a basis for national
level legislation.
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and
their Families (1990). This prohibits forced labour and servitude, but there
are no EU ratifications of this convention.
International Labour Organization actions

Convention No. 29 (Forced Labour, 1930). Signatories agreed to suppress
forced labour in national legislation except in specific circumstances, such
as a national emergency.
Convention No. 105 (Abolition of Forced Labour, 1957). Signatories
agreed to suppress forced labour, and not to use either forced or
compulsory labour as a punishment.
In addition to these, a number of conventions relate to working
conditions, most particularly restrictions on working time, for example,
Convention No. 1 (Hours of Work [Industry], 1919), which restricts
working hours in industry (broadly, manufacturing and construction) to
eight per day, 48 per week, subject to various conditions, and Convention
No. 14 (Weekly Rest [Industry], 1921), which guarantees at least one
period of 24hours rest per week. Some EU states have ratified these
in full, some with reservations and others (such as the UK) not at all.
Convention No. 95 (Protection of Wages) meanwhile, requires the
regular payment of wages, restrictions on what and how deductions
may be made, and mechanisms for making workers with outstanding
wages preferential creditors in the event of insolvency of the employer.
A number of EU member states have ratified this, including France, Italy,
Poland and Spain.3
EU instruments
Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000). Article 5 prohibits slavery and
forced labour. It separates slavery and servitude from compulsory or
forced labour, and both from trafficking.
Council Directive 2011/36/EU of 5April 2011 on preventing and
combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims
(replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA). This extends
trafficking to taking advantage of a persons position of vulnerability
(defined as a situation in which the person concerned has no real or
acceptable alternative but to submit to the abuse involved). It sets
out minimum penalties for perpetrators, and a level of support for
victims, which is not conditional on them assisting in the prosecution
of their abuser(s), which should include at least subsistence support,
accommodation, medical treatment, counselling, information and
interpreting services. While member states must ensure that victims of
trafficking have access to existing schemes of compensation to victims
of violent crimes of intent, there are no provisions for compensation for
excessive hours or unpaid wages, or other distress. Denmark has opted
out, but the UK and Ireland have opted in. Transposition by states is due
by 6April 2013.
Council Directive 2009/52/EC, providing for minimum standards on
sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying thirdcountry nationals. This deals primarily with penalties against employers
of irregular (undocumented migrant) workers, but Article 6 makes
employers liable for back pay (equivalent to the minimum wage, collective
20
agreements or established practice), gives illegally employed thirdcountry nationals the right to make a claim for such outstanding pay, and
requires information about that right to be made available to them. It
specifically excludes regularisation of workers concerned, and the UK has
opted out.
Council Directive 2004/81 on residence permits issued to third-country
nationals who are victims of trafficking. While this requires that where
residence permits are issued they should be for at least six months, and
include the right to work, they are subject to the pre-requirements that
the individuals presence serves a useful purpose for the investigation (of
the trafficking); they have shown a clear intention to cooperate and have
severed relations with those suspected of the offences.4 It also refers to
the need for support such as accommodation, medical and psychological
support and legal aid (if provided under national law).
Council Directive 2004/80/EC on compensation in cross-border
situations. This applies to violent intentional crime and to habitual
residents of member states. It requires member states to have a
compensation scheme for victims of violent intentional crime committed
in their territories, and has set up a system facilitating access to
compensation for victims of crimes in cross-border situations.
The European Commission (2012) has also recently published a strategy
document on combating trafficking over the next five years, identifying a
number of priorities, including the need for those trafficked to be made
aware of their rights (especially to residence permits).
Just as with ILO conventions, there are a number of EU directives dealing
with the regulation of work and employment that may offer protection to
those exposed to forced labour practices. Most significant is the Working
Time Directive (2003/88/EC) which restricts working time to 48hours per
week (with some exceptions),5 entitles workers to four weeks paid annual
leave, and requires daily and weekly breaks between periods of work (11
and 24hours respectively). The 1989 Health and Safety at Work Directive
(89/391/EEC) is significant because it specifically covers all workers (not
just employees), although it also specifically excludes domestic workers.
Potentially, the Agency Workers and Posting of Workers Directives may be
relevant, but the likelihood of those affected by forced labour not having
lawful employment contracts may mean that these rights cannot be applied.
Finally, in 2009 the ILO and European Commission jointly published a list
of indicators of trafficking for labour or sexual exploitation based on a Delphi
experts consultation.6 Although this is not strictly speaking a regulation, it
has been widely accepted as a benchmark for national enforcement practice
(ILO, 2009).
National regulations
Implementation of the measures listed varies according to the measures
available to challenge forced labour, whether through employment, human
rights, immigration or criminal law.
While the offences could therefore potentially be contested in these
different branches of law, this also creates practical problems, both in
determining who should take action the state, the individual or a third
party and in deciding which grounds are most likely to secure a result that
will punish the employer concerned and deter others while simultaneously
supporting the worker who has experienced forced labour.
21
This study was not intended to be a full review of legal provisions, and
our national experts were not asked to engage in detailed analysis of the law
in each state, although in some cases their reports on this point are quite
detailed. Nevertheless, the legal basis for any responses to forced labour
is significant, and based on the national reports produced by our team of
experts, we consider there are four areas of law that may prove relevant for a
discussion on forced labour.
Criminal law
This renders offences against workers such as kidnapping, deprivation of
liberty, theft and assault liable to punishment. In Italy, some prosecutors
have used criminal charges of fraud or forging documents or aiding unlawful
immigration to prosecute perpetrators when there is no clear evidence of
trafficking. However, compensation was normally available only to those
exposed to violent crimes in the nine countries researched. No examples
were cited in the national reports of this having occurred in cases of forced
labour alone.
Labour law
Severe breaches of employment regulations constitute extreme exploitation.
In Latvia, for example, legislation providing employees with the right to
decent work and equal treatment could be applied to prosecute forced labour
occurrences. All states have some protections regarding working time (see
the sections on ILO conventions and EU directives above), breaches of which
could result in prosecutions, since excessive hours are a health and safety
consideration. Entitlement to wages at a specified level may be covered
by minimum wage legislation or contractual law, but may sometimes be
dependent on the existence of a legally enforceable employment contract.
Human rights law

This could potentially lead to detailing a specific forced labour offence, but
was rare in the nine countries. Forced labour may be illegal, however, where
countries, such as Italy, have constitutions that specify protections regarding
work, human rights and equality. Italys Article 36 guarantees workers a wage
sufficient to ensure them and their families a free and dignified existence.
Its constitution also promises work breaks, paid holidays and a ceiling on
weekly hours of work, while Article 41 requires that the freedom of private
enterprise should not conflict with the public good, or damage safety, liberty
or human dignity.
The French Penal Code outlaws slavery (Article 121-1) and conditions
of work and lodging contrary to human dignity (Article 225-4-1), but the
absence in France of specific protection from forced labour was the subject
of a landmark ECHR judgment in 2005 (Siliadin v. France, 73316/01, Council
of Europe: ECHR, 2005). France was condemned because there was no
proper restitution for forced labour judges at one level had determined
that since Ms. Siliadin (a domestic worker) could leave the house in which she
was employed, she was not forced to remain, and that very long working
hours looking after children could not constitute labour exploitation because
this was normal many mothers did this for their own children.
In theory, all legislation should be compliant with human rights, so the
distinction between this and other branches of law is not precise. Ensuring
such compliance in practice can be very time consuming, and possibly
expensive.
22
Immigration law
Legislation in this area tends to conflate trafficking with smuggling and/or
unlawful migration. Restrictions on the right to work (or to employ certain
migrants) come into this category.
The issue of support for the subjects of forced labour is often crucial in
determining their readiness to cooperate with legal actions. In France the
potential for seasonal workers to gain residential status, and with it a host of
previously denied entitlements, gave them the motivation to work with an
NGO to see a lengthy court case through to success (see Box 3).
Box 3: French seasonal workers supported in targeted litigation

CODETRAS (Collective for the Defence of Foreign Workers in
Agriculture) is an association of trade unions, a small farmers union (the
Confdration Paysanne), anti-racism organisations, the Human Rights
League and a number of rural social workers, activists and researchers.
It was founded in 2001 in the Bouches-du-Rhne dpartement, in the
south of France, one of Frances main fruit and vegetable producing
regions, to challenge the legalised exploitation faced by seasonal
workers who are the backbone of the labour force in the fields and
greenhouses of the region.
Since the 1970s several thousand Moroccan and Tunisian citizens have
come to France each year on OMI contracts (lOffice des Migrations
Internationales), that allow them to work for up to six months in
agriculture, with the possibility of a prolongation in exceptional
circumstances to eight months. They are physically in France, but as far
as their rights are concerned, they are in Morocco or Tunisia. While they
paid social security contributions at the normal French rate, the family
allowances and pensions they receive are based on the Moroccan/
Tunisian rate, which is over five times lower than the French rate. They
have no right to unemployment benefits or to wage increases related
to their skills (unlike other, permanent workers) and do not receive
seniority bonuses. Their weekly working hours vastly exceed the legal
limit, but they are not paid overtime rates. Most are obliged to live on
farms, often in dormitories or mobile homes without sufficient showers
or sometimes even running water.
OMI workers rarely protest against the abuses they suffer. As their
contracts are nominal, they are tied to their boss and may not change
employers without a certificate of freedom. It is their boss who every
year decides which workers he wishes to employ the following year.
Workers are aware that anyone who complains will not obtain a new
contract the following year.
When CODETRAS first denounced this situation in 2002, a scandal
that had existed for almost 30years suddenly came to light, forcing the
prfecture (the local state authorities) to take the Collectives allegations
seriously and to hold discussions with all concerned. Some workers took
their employers to the labour court with CODETRAS legal support.
One man, Baloua, had worked for 23years for the same employer, and
every year his contract had been extended to eight months. He only lost
his job when his boss sold the farm and did not even bother to inform
his workers that their contracts would not be renewed. Every year since
1986, Baloua had noted down the hours he had worked every day and
23
the wages he had received. This enabled his lawyers to argue that he had
been cheated out of a total of about three years worth of wages and
that in those eight months each year he had worked for more than the
equivalent of a full year.
Nama is the only woman ever to have been granted an OMI contract,
officially to carry out agricultural work. In fact, she was recruited by
a fruit farmer who already employed several members of her family,
to do domestic work. She was treated as a maid and obliged to work
1216hours a day, seven days a week. When she announced that she
wanted to marry, her employers finally accepted but insisted that she
should not have any children. According to her CODETRAS lawyer, she
was kept in a situation of financial, administrative and social dependency,
her own family pressing her to accept this situation for fear of the
consequences which a refusal to work in such conditions would have.
They knew only too well that all of their jobs were at stake.
When she had an accident at work in 2000, her employer refused to
declare it. She and her husband were later fired and obliged to leave
their lodgings, and found themselves without work, resources or papers.
She finally decided to react, and with the help of the CGT union, the
MRAP anti-racist organisation and then CODETRAS, she began a
legal marathon in 2002, which is ongoing. In reprisal, her ex-employer
refused to renew the contracts of the other members of her family.
CODETRAS first won a residence permit for Baloua. In September 2006
the Marseille Administrative Court ruled that Baloua was in reality a
permanent worker and that if Mr At Baloua was forced to return to
Morocco each year for four months, during 22years, this was only to
respect the legal pretence that his employer and the administration
had agreed to give to his employment and his residence in France;
MrAit Baloua must therefore be considered legally to be a resident in
France, in a regular manner for over 10years. In 2010 Baloua received
40,000 and 19 other workers a total of 110,000 back pay in an
agreement negotiated with their former employer, in exchange for the
cessation of legal action.
CODETRAS organised regular group OMI complaints, with 20 or 30
workers appearing in court at the same time, eventually forcing the
prfecture to systematically grant residence permits to all OMI workers
who had worked regularly in France for over six months a year. Some
1,300 to 1,500 Moroccan and Tunisian citizens have so far succeeded in
obtaining permits. In January 2011, 24 workers were awarded a total of
over 1.1million against their employers.
The government responded by ending the possibility of prolonging
OMI contracts beyond six months, although to help the employers, it
decided that staff could have overlapping seasonal contracts, thereby
still avoiding employing full-time staff with full access to all rights.
This legal campaign by CODETRAS was spectacularly successful, but it
has also had negative consequences. Most of the North African ex-OMI
workers who obtained a years residence permit were then excluded
from the agricultural labour market. And the overall number of OMI
contract workers has fallen as temporary employment agencies legally
established in other EU countries increasingly bring in migrant workers
who charge them as little as 5 an hour per worker.
Author: Nicholas Bell, European Civic Forum and CODETRAS
24
While forced labour-related offences might be prosecuted through different

channels (depending on the country), these may also be combined, so, for
example, criminal law may encompass employment law, and human rights
principles should apply in all cases. Some of the sanctions under the laws may
have been determined by international conventions and EU directives; others
purely by national legislature. The states examined in the national reports
varied in the emphasis placed on the various branches, as well as the extent
to which they implemented the international instruments.
Several states have used the same definitions as the Palermo Protocol in
defining trafficking in persons, and Latvia, for example, has inserted an antitrafficking clause into its Criminal Code, making unlawful recruitment as
well as other transfer activities for the purposes of labour exploitation. Italy
has ratified ILO Conventions 29, 105 and 182 (prohibiting child labour), but
has still not made forced labour a specific offence outside of the context of
trafficking for labour exploitation.
But the Palermo Protocols terminology does not consistently ensure that
forced labour and intensive exploitation is unlawful, although the Framework
Decision required all states to create a criminal offence for trafficking. In
Ireland, the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act was passed in 2008. This
has led to legal debate as to whether forced labour can only take place where
it has involved cross-border trafficking, or whether the act of recruitment
does not presuppose that a border has been crossed. The Irish Employment
Permits Act (2006) created the offences of retaining workers identity
documents, and making deductions for recruitment fees and their travelling
expenses (where they actually have work permits). In Sweden, courts have
ruled both that unlawful labour exploitation in the context of trafficking
occurs only if a workers freedom of movement was restricted, and also that
the intentional misleading of the worker had to be proved in determining that
trafficking had occurred.
The Netherlands Penal Code provisions derive from the Palermo Protocol
and the EU Framework Decision on trafficking, as well as a previously
existing clause against sexual exploitation. However, interpretation of the
international legislation has largely been left to the judges who use case law
to define what might constitute vulnerability, the intention to take advantage
of vulnerability and exploitation. They have determined tests for establishing
vulnerability as: there being a combination of illegal residence, poor economic
circumstances on the part of the subject and inability to speak Dutch. Taking
advantage of vulnerability proved more difficult to define, as judges were
concerned that workers might have actively sought the employment in
question. A Netherlands Court of Appeal judgment then ruled the employer
would have had to show initiative and action aimed at intentionally abusing
the workers vulnerability.
Initially judges in the Netherlands applied tough tests on exploitation,
ruling that even if they were socially undesirable, poor labour conditions
were not sufficient to establish exploitation for the purposes of trafficking.
However, in October 2009 the Netherlands Supreme Court considered the
case of Chinese restaurant workers who had worked (without legal authority
to do so) six days a week, between 11 and 13hours per day, for between
400 and 800 per month, sleeping several to a room. Lower courts had
determined that this was not enough to determine exploitation, as it could
not be shown that the workers had no other alternative. The Supreme
Court judged that while no general definition of exploitation was possible,
consideration had to be given to the nature of the employment, restrictions
placed by that employment on the individual and the financial gain of the
employer, and determined it would be incomprehensible to consider that the
25
employer had no intention to exploit. In future acceptable Netherlands work

standards had to be used as a frame of reference rather than the workers
view of the conditions.
26
4Recognising
forced labour
This report is specifically focused on forced labour
as distinct from trafficking, and while there may
be internationally accepted definitions of this, it
is not always clear how these might apply in the
national context. This section examines the variety
of national approaches to describing, publicising and
examining the phenomenon of forced labour, as set
out in the national reports and case studies prepared
for this project.
Accepting that forced labour occurs

Despite clear and well-publicised examples, forced labour tended not to
be widely acknowledged as a significant phenomenon within the countries
examined. Thus although in Germany over 200 cases of trafficking for labour
exploitation have been investigated, enquiries made during the preparation
of the German national report were referred to organisations dealing with
Second World War reparations for forced labour, and the Germany Labour
Ministry (BMAS) replied that certainly, in Germany, there is no forced labour
in work and professional life.
In a case involving two of the countries studied, Polish migrant workers
were abused by gangmasters in Foggia, Italy they were not allowed to
move freely and had deductions illegally made from their wages. This was
investigated in both Poland and Italy, with police evidence to a 2009 Italian
parliamentary enquiry stating:
The[y] do not show any sign of humanity towards their slaves, they are
rather ready to beat them, torture them, even to kill them, just as an
example for others; gangmasters do not tolerate any type of reaction
by the exploited, because they must perform, and always, in silence,
accept the harassment of their superiors; it even happens that the
27
slaves should bring a woman to the gangmaster so he sexually abused

her in exchange for a daily work. (Interrogazione no. 168, 29April
2009)
Despite coverage given to this extreme case, awareness-raising campaigns
(see Box 4 for an example) and one person in ten knowing someone who
had experienced deception over their employment abroad, opinion polls
in Poland show that respondents nevertheless considered trafficking to be
more associated with sexual exploitation and prostitution (26per cent of
replies) than with forced or unpaid labour (10per cent) (TNS OBOP, 2010).
In Latvia media reports of abuse of the countrys nationals working in
host countries may have led exploitation and forced labour practices to be
regarded as normal for migrants. Indeed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
suggests workers should expect problems, and have enough money for their
return ticket (Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2011).
Box 4: Hollywood awareness raising in Poland

An awareness-raising campaign among potential migrants was launched
in Szczecin, the capital city of a border region in north-western Poland,
to coincide with the lifting of EU border controls on Polish workers.
The campaign was initiated in 2008 as a joint enterprise of the regional
administration, prosecutors office, regional police and education
authorities. The title of the campaign was Not all trains go to Hollywood
referring to a Polish film Train to Hollywood about a young girl dreaming
about becoming an actress. It warned about the unrealistic expectations
regarding work abroad, and the ways exploiters lured their victims.
Campaigning against sexual exploitation, forced labour, forced crime,
begging and stealing organs it consisted of a website, and leaflets and
posters distributed in Szczecin and neighbouring towns, in particular,
seaside resorts. The staff of the participating institutions met and
discussed the problems of trafficking with young people, teachers,
social workers and NGO workers, and developed teaching packs.
These presented the basic strategies of the perpetrators, as well as a
checklist for a safe trip abroad (preparing copies of documents, contact
telephone numbers, verifying a job offer or credibility of a work agent,
for example).
It went beyond the stereotype of trafficking young women for
prostitution to show that anyone could be lured and trafficked,
thus trying to reduce the popular contempt for the victims. As the
mechanisms are similar in the case of trafficking non-European
Economic Area (EEA) nationals to Poland, the campaign may also
change the perception of non-national victims and the awareness of the
assistance available to them.
Source: www.szczecin.kwp.gov.pl/hollywood/index.html
In France the term forced labour (travail forc) was more often used in
reports of abusive labour practices in developing countries than it was to
describe exploitation in France itself. Similar tendencies were also noted in
Germany, Italy and Spain (where such an analysis appeared in a trade union
campaign against labour exploitation).
28
When it comes to exploitation in domestic work and prostitution,

however, where the women and children involved are portrayed as victims, a
higher level of awareness seemed to exist, and this was noted in both France
and Germany (see, for example, Follmar-Otto and Rab, 2009).
By contrast, abused workers (and particularly men) in other industries
tended to be seen as suffering exploitation, however severe, rather
than forced labour. In Spain such abuse tended to be classified as labour
exploitation in inhumane conditions, while in Germany terms such as
enforced or involuntary work (erzwungene Arbeit, Unfreie), unfavourable
working conditions (ungustige arbeit) or extreme form of labour exploitation
(extreme Form der Arbeitsausbeutung) were used.
However, these deficiencies are being recognised, and the 2009 French
National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH) enquiry
specifically addressed the rights of victims of trafficking or exploitation, which
explicitly recognised that trafficking alone was an inadequate framework
(CNCDH, 2009). In Germany, the coordinating group KOK, which represents
organisations involved in combating trafficking and violence against women,
published in 2012 a comprehensive, policy-oriented report which presented
data from judicial, academic and practitioner sources covering labour
exploitation, bonded labour servitude and slavery. This included much of the
data which appears in the German national report, but also drew conclusions
for Germany as to how those subjected to trafficking for labour exploitation
could better be supported (KOK-Informationsdienst, 2012).
Highlighting rights
Publicising rights to both workers and employers has value in arming
workers, their representatives and advisers, as well as reminding employers
of their obligations. The research revealed several examples of information
campaigns aimed at groups that might be particularly susceptible to forced
labour, in particular, migrant or undocumented workers:
The Polish trade union confederation OPZZ, in cooperation with the
European anti-trafficking NGO La Strada, published material on rights
aimed at migrant workers.
A forced labour manual for Polish labour inspectors has been published. It
shows how young people are being targeted.
The German trade union VerDi established the MigrAR project to give
advice and assistance to undocumented workers, and the union IG Bau
participated in a public awareness campaign as part of its support for an
ILO report on trafficking in 2004.
The Berlin Alliance Against Human Trafficking (BBGM) focuses on raising
awareness among those who may come into contact with those trafficked
for labour exploitation, providing training and multilingual information.
The Nuovo Orme 4 (New Footsteps 4) Italian awareness-raising project
in Emilia Romagna includes local authorities, NGOs and the social
cooperatives that were involved in forming the anti-trafficking association
Associazione Trame.
The Migrant Rights Centre Ireland (MRCI) publishes material in the form
of rights sheets for migrant workers, and collaborates with the Irish
Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) in unionising workers.
An Irish network of domestic workers in Ireland (see Box 5) publishes
a quarterly newsletter. It promotes the recently ratified ILO Domestic
Workers Convention, and works to raise awareness of the problems faced
by domestic workers.
Recognising forced labour
29
Box 5: Campaigning against forced labour in private

households
In 2003 MRCI noted an increase in the number of domestic workers
coming to it reporting serious cases of abuse involving long working
hours, violence from their employers, non-payment of wages and
general poor treatment. Information collected from the workers stories
encouraged it to set up a Domestic Workers Action Group (DWAG),
mainly involving Filipino women who met every Sunday.
The group now has around 200 members, mostly migrant women
working in private homes as childminders, cleaners and carers. A core of
15 to 20 workers meets once every two months. They have a quarterly
newsletter and participated in the formation of a domestic workers
branch of the trade union SIPTU, although that activity appears to have
declined through lack of sufficient union support. They have lobbied
organisations such as the ILO for the 2011 Convention concerning
Decent Work for Domestic Workers, and are now calling on the Irish
government to commit to ratifying it.
DWAG recently campaigned for the abolition of diplomatic immunity in
cases of domestic worker employment by embassy staff. One case came
to attention after a Ukrainian female domestic worker, employed in
the private household of a South African embassy diplomat, shared her
story at one of the regular domestic workers meetings. It was clear that
domestic workers in this situation had no transparent regime and a lack
of employment contracts. The group then picketed outside the embassy
and outside the private house of the embassy worker. This was action
they could sustain. Several claims were lodged at the Labour Relations
Commission, but all were initially dismissed following the employers
claims of diplomatic immunity. The case gained much publicity and three
cases were then referred to the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit for further
investigation.
The main obstacle was seen as the private sphere of the home, which
was not viewed as a legitimate place of work to be subject to regulation
and state control. MRCI therefore began campaigning for inspections
in the domestic sector to be conducted by the National Employment
Rights Authority (NERA); for the domestic sector to be on its high risk
list; for a protocol for the protection of domestic workers employed by
diplomatic staff; and for the establishment of a Joint Labour Committee
to regulate and set out legal minimum rates and standards for the
domestic work industry.
This campaign led to an announcement in November 2010 that NERA
would target private households employing domestic workers for
inspection. A pilot phase of inspections began in the Mid-West region
of Ireland in early 2011 to check that individuals were getting the
minimum wage and basic employment rights. NERA is able to interview
the employer and employee at a location outside the home and can
demand access to documentation. While consent is needed of private
householders to enter their premises, this is the first time that the state
has formally recognised the private household as a unit of workplace
inspection.
As well as the pilot, NERA has issued a Code of Practice (2007). This
sets out: the obligation to provide a written statement of terms and
conditions of employment as required under the Terms of Employment
30
(Information) Acts 1994 and 2001, detailing hours, rates, duties, breaks/
leave entitlements, treatment of travel time etc.; provisions as regards
the safeguarding of employee privacy; that the employer will not keep
any personal document belonging to an employee; the treatment
of accommodation and making of any deductions; that all additional
duties will be by prior agreement and out-of-pocket expenses will be
reimbursed promptly; that the employer will facilitate the employee in
the free exercise of personal pursuits; and that the employer will not
restrict the employees right to trade union membership.
Author: Sonia McKay
While none of the NGOs in the nine countries dealt solely or even principally
with forced labour, several worked in areas where forced labour might be
encountered, and had responded to it accordingly. MRCI in Ireland and
Citt Migrante in Italy focus on undocumented migrants, CCEM focuses on
domestic workers and CODETRAS also in France on agricultural workers.
These organisations play a major role in highlighting examples of forced
labour and extreme exploitation, and in supporting those subjected to it in
claiming or campaigning for their rights.
Government initiatives
Responding to concerns about preventing labour exploitation (primarily
arising from the Palermo Protocol but also in response to the directive on
trafficking), certain governments decided to research the phenomenon and
to review and sometimes amend their responses:
In 2010 the Latvian Ministry of the Interior established a working group
to look specifically at labour exploitation in connection with its 200913
Programme for Prevention of Trafficking in Human Beings. It now
includes the prosecutor-generals office, state police, State Border Guard,
Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Welfare and an NGO, Patvrums Dro Mja
(Shelter Safe House), the state Labour Inspectorate and the state Labour
Agency. Its main tasks are to prepare criteria for the identification of
labour exploitation and guidelines for cooperation between enforcement
agencies and for the provision of support. Members believe it will
increase awareness and develop indicators to spread the understanding
that labour exploitation is as serious a crime as sexual exploitation. It will
examine non-payment of taxes, wages paid below the official minimum
wage, and non-compliance of living and working conditions with decent
standards, and will develop tests with the Labour Inspectorate and State
Border Guard to distinguish between labour exploitation and normal
labour grievances.
The Italian Prodi government created a Commission on Forced Labour in
2007 (within the anti-trafficking Committee of the Equal Opportunities
Department) and issued a circular to the police, authorising them to
issue residence permits for social protection to severely exploited
workers. Although these measures did not survive the subsequent
Berlusconi administration, in 2010 a farm labourers protest movement in
Rosarno led to a dedicated Vigilance plan, focusing on identifying labour
exploitation in agriculture and construction in the south of Italy.
In the Netherlands pilot information exchanges have been set up to
examine minimum wage payments between The Hague municipality,
the Labour Inspectorate, Tax and Customs Authority and the Social
31
Information and Investigation Service, with national-level intervention

teams created to deal with industries thought to be at high risk of abusive
labour conditions. The Netherlands Labour Ministry also introduced an
exploitation information card in 2009 setting out the key indicators of
abuse and workers rights in 12 languages, for use by those affected, and
organisations such as the municipalities, the police, migrant churches and
NGOs.
In Ireland an Anti-Human Trafficking Unit was established in 2008 and it
has provided training to officials from a range of organisations including
NERA and the Health and Safety Executive. An interdepartmental HighLevel Group was set up with five interdisciplinary groups, one of which
deals specifically with labour exploitation. NERA has also produced a Code
of Practice for employers of domestic workers in private households.
In France, the National Commission for Combating Illegal Work
coordinate government action on exploitation. This encompasses work
carried out by undocumented migrants, offences against labour rights
and non-declared work (in which tax and social security contributions
are evaded) as well as trafficking or forced labour. In 2005 the Central
Office for Combating Illegal Work (OCLTI) was established to oversee
enforcement, and in 2009 CNCDH produced a major report on
trafficking and exploitation, many of whose 94 recommendations dealt
with the detection, recompense and support of victims of forced labour.
International initiatives
While forced labour practices do not always have a transnational element,
they often do. Transnationalism here may concern both the subjects and the
perpetrators.
Recruitment may take place in one country for exploitation in another,
or wages earned in the host country may remain unpaid for workers who
return to their home country. Police in Spain considered that they needed
transnational cooperation and intelligence to confront labour exploitation
by transnational networks that began with debts being incurred by workers
while still in China (see Box 6). When they are themselves foreign nationals,
the perpetrators of forced labour may, on discovery, simply remove
themselves from the jurisdiction of the authorities in the country where the
offences were committed.
Box 6: Chinese forced labour in Spain

Matar, a textile town outside Barcelona with around 120,000 inhabitants,
was heavily hit by globalisation, and hosts more than 100 new, local
Chinese textile workshops concentrated in one neighbourhood.
Witnesses granted protection under anti-trafficking laws warned of
numerous labour and migration infractions there, and to suspicions that
a criminal network was operating between China and Spain.
A series of raids by Catalan police and labour inspectors found that
the Chinese migrants had acquired substantial debt in the process of
reaching Spain. More than 30per cent of the exploited workers (130)
declared to the police that they were paying off debts of up to 20,000.
This is at least ten times higher than a flight ticket, but the organisation,
a travel agency, also provided contact with a network of Chinese
32
employers in Spain, and helped launder the workers identity. The

pressure to repay the debt and the fear of retaliation against the families
was considered the cornerstone of the whole criminal organisation,
which explains why workers would accept almost any labour conditions.
During the last five years the structure of the criminal network
fundamentally changed, passing from a single organisation to three
organisations, each specialising in a different phase: recruitment and
travel from China, labour exploitation in Spain and the transfer of
exploited migrants around Europe.
Each textile workshop was part of a network producing original clothes
for more than 400 very well known brands. The brands assigned orders
to an intermediary offering the best price. They were in contact with
two to three legal Chinese workshops that in turn spread the workload
to unregistered ones. In this way, brands and intermediaries would avoid
culpability for any crime.
The powers that the municipality and labour inspectors can exercise
over this process are minimal. A licence for a workshop just has to
self-declare that the economic activity complies with a range of basic
standards (such as accessibility, safety), yet only 11 out of the 77
workshops raided in Matar had obtained it, as local politicians sought to
encourage inward investment. Even since the 2010 raids, new Chinese
textile workshops have opened in Matar, and it is possible that the
same exploitation framework is being replicated.
The Chinese workers told the police that their monthly wage was
around 500600, excluding deductions for repaying the smugglers.
The remainder was used for basic needs and for sending remittances
back to China. In general, workers would have to work for more than six
years to pay off their debt.
Each workshop operated under different rules. In some cases, workers
were free to move, or the working area was separate from the sleeping
areas, while in other workshops, living conditions were more like those
of a prison camp. Irrespective of the degree of freedom of movement
or the labour conditions, Chinese workers were unwilling to leave their
workplaces. Reasons included their lack of knowledge of Spanish, their
being undocumented and sometimes lack of money. Thus, workers were
placed in a vulnerable situation, preventing any idea of leaving the job or
denouncing the abuse.
After the police and labour inspectors checked the workshops, sewing
machines were sealed and clothes requisitioned. Nevertheless, more
than 450 workers who were found were allowed to stay living there,
and were not detained. This was for two reasons. First, the operation
was secretly planned. Neither the municipality nor relevant NGOs had
been alerted, so no system of assistance had been deployed. Second, the
inspectors approach was that exploited workers were first of all victims
and only then undocumented migrants. Consequently, no expulsion
measures were applied in order not to victimise the workers twice.
During the days following the raids, workers were called to testify about
their situation and were offered assistance from the Spanish Red Cross.
Despite their critical situation, many refused assistance and disappeared.
While the Catalan Immigration Secretariat and Red Cross had hired
a hotel near to Matar in order to offer temporary accommodation,
33
after just three days the hotel lay empty. It is thought that the workers
had found jobs in other local textile workshops, or that another illicit
organisation had moved them abroad. Finally, a few returned to China.
The principal explanation lies with the pressure of the debt, although it
is also possible that some were intimidated by the police presence.
Equally, because of their prolonged immersion in an exploitation-based
framework, the victims might have considered their working conditions
as acceptable. Some of them, after having repaid their debt, opened new
textile workshops, and themselves became exploiters. The raids proved
the presence of forced labour: there were strong relations with the
criminal organisation to which workers had to pay a considerable debt;
there was lack of freedom of movement; they were undocumented;
wages were significantly below the legal minimum; they were subject
to excessive working hours and infringement of basic health and safety
measures; and they lacked privacy during rest periods. The need to
continue paying back their debt and the lack of any identity documents
seemed to be the major reasons why workers overwhelmingly refused
the social support proposed by the police.
The textile workshop employers are currently being charged with
several crimes, but judgment has not taken place at the time of writing.
Although the Catalan police have acquired better knowledge about the
transnational criminal network as a result, regions such as Catalonia or
even countries cannot effectively fight extended and rooted criminal
organisations alone. It is also clear that unbeatable price and delivery
terms offered to legal client companies permit illegal workshops to
easily fit in and grow within the Spanish production system. The limited
powers of the municipality (which assigns the licence for opening any
productive activity) and the almost total absence of labour inspections
helps encourage a wide range of infringements.
Author: Paolo Leotti
In response, several international initiatives have been undertaken, some

focusing on awareness raising and crime reporting, others involving more
detailed cooperation. In 2007 the G6 Human Trafficking Initiative was
launched in Brussels by Ireland, the UK, the Netherlands, Poland, Italy and
Spain. Supported by Europol, Interpol and Eurojust, the campaign was
directed at detecting and acting against organised traffickers, as well as
raising public awareness of the issue. A few months later the UK Human
Trafficking Centre (UKHTC) launched the Blue Blindfold international
campaign. It also secured the support of Europol and Interpol, as well as of
the US and UN anti-trafficking centres, for its awareness-raising activities.
However, this is illustrative of the problem of regarding forced labour
through the lens of trafficking. The focus of the campaign on trafficking
places it specifically within the context of migration. This means that no
specific provision has been made for dealing with cases of forced labour,
nor do the measures encompassed within the campaign include any specific
mention of work-related issues (such as unpaid wages).
In complex prosecutions, intelligence from the home country (either
from workers who have returned or regarding perpetrators resident there)
is needed. Coordination between Latvian and Italian authorities was essential
in the modelling agency case (see Box 7) where young Latvian women
were tricked into going to work in Italy, and international cooperation also
featured in the asparagus case in the Netherlands (see Box 2). These are,
34
however, largely ad hoc responses, and it is unclear whether cases requiring

such cooperation occur on a sufficient scale to require the establishment of
permanent international structures.
However, information exchanges relating to immigration and labour
inspection do occur between France, Germany and Belgium as a contribution
to work against labour exploitation, and discussions are underway about
extending them to include Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal.
Box 7: Latvia and Italy: cross-border legal cooperation

The only case to come to a Latvian court based on charges of labour
exploitation involved the company WWW Management Inc./Riga
established in 2001. Initially advertisements for this modelling agency
even appeared in the University of Latvias newspaper. It recruited
young girls and women aged from 13 up to 20 who were recruited to
work in a modelling agency in Milan, run by a Croatian man. While the
names of the modelling agencies in Riga and Milan changed several
times, the people who organised the recruitment remained the same.
The Latvian female recruiter was charged with recruiting the women for
sexual and labour exploitation, while knowingly making fraudulent promises
about living and working conditions in Italy. She drew up contracts in English
that were signed by her and the parents of the potential models, but no
copies of the contracts were ever given to the parents.
The Croatian head of the model agency in Italy was charged with having
total control over the private lives of the young women in Italy, retaining
their passports and mobile phone SIM cards, exploiting them sexually
and for labour, and controlling their movements by confining them to
the workplace.
In fact, no modelling agency actually existed. The young women had to
go to model castings and search for modelling work on their own. If they
succeeded and got paid, the money was divided between the companys
owners.
The ILO and European Commission (2009) indicators of forced labour
observed were: the restriction of movement and confinement to the
workplace or to a limited area; the withholding of wages or excessive
wage reductions that violate previously made agreements; and the
retention of passports and identity documents, so that the worker
cannot leave, or prove his/her identify and status.
A pre-trial investigation against the Latvian recruiter was launched in
2007, helped by the Italian law enforcement agencies, and was received
via the Eurojust network, after the director of the company WWW
Management Inc. was successfully prosecuted in Italy for the sexual
exploitation of minors. The criminal case in Latvia for human trafficking
finally began in 2009. The Latvian recruiter was accused under Latvian
Criminal Law Section 154.1(2), but was initially found not guilty in June
2011. The Latvian Prosecutor General immediately resubmitted the
charge to a higher court .The Supreme court repealed the not guilty
verdict and sent the case back to the regional court. The recruiters
lawyer appealed against this decision. The hearing of this appeal was
postponed due to illness. No date is yet scheduled.
Author: Aija Lulle
35
Detection and inspection

Most countries have focussed on confronting forced labour and
trafficking through the criminal law with a tendency to overlook the
valuable and complementary role of labour inspectors. (ILO, 2010)
Forced labour may come to light due to workers claims against or
denunciations of their employers for abusive employment practices (such
as non-payment of wages), or through the independent actions of unions
and labour inspectors. It may also be detected through migrant workers
approaching immigration or similar information centres, or through
inspections carried out by immigration authorities, or by housing officials.
Problems arise, however, where the workers concerned are not entitled
to work. This often arises when immigration enforcement officials and labour
inspectors take joint actions, as in Latvia. Abused workers may also have
well-founded concerns about approaching authority in general. In Germany,
for example, labour inspectors are obliged to inform immigration authorities
of any undocumented migrants, although they are not required to enquire
about their immigration status. The likelihood of abuse being reported is thus
reduced by workers avoiding identifying themselves to the authorities for
fear of removal. In most of the countries examined, labour inspectors are well
established, having a role that, in addition to health and safety inspections,
may include checking on the application of employment regulations,
payment of wages, equality and the detection of undeclared work. France,
Poland and Latvia have general inspectorates, covering employment and
health and safety, in Italy and Ireland the roles are separate, while in Sweden
and Germany inspectorates deal principally with health and safety.
As pointed out by the ILO, such inspectors are well placed to provide
early warnings before instances of forced labour and trafficking become
entrenched practices of abuse. Inspectors also enjoy easier access to
workplaces than police and prosecutors while still performing an important
monitoring function for possible judicial action (ILO, 2010).
In some countries the labour inspectors remit is limited. For example, in
Spain inspectors are not allowed to inspect private households and so cannot
intervene where forced labour involves domestic workers. Similarly in Ireland,
while NERA has rights of inspection of Irish workplaces, this excludes private
households (although voluntary inspections of homes with domestic workers
are being piloted).
For workers who are isolated and unable to speak the host country
language, and prevented by their legal status or financial means from
pursuing complaints in their own right, the possibility of enforcement of
their rights by government agencies becomes particularly important. All
states signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights are under an
obligation to investigate allegations of forced labour (Article 4). The ECHR
has interpreted this as not requiring an actual complaint by those affected
once the state has become aware, it must act.
In Italy, since 2002 employers tendering for contracts in both the public
and private sector are now required to hold a certificate of regular payments of
their social contributions. This must be shown on demand by labour inspectors.
In the Netherlands two branches of the Labour Inspectorate (Labour
Market Fraud and Labour Conditions Directorate) may inspect workplaces,
but over half of their inspections occur jointly with the Aliens Police, making
complaints by non-compliant migrants unlikely. The Social Intelligence and
Investigation Department (SIID) includes both the police and the Border
Force, and therefore looks for forced labour in the context of trafficking
36
and immigration offences. Housing officers employed by the Netherlands

municipalities may also detect forced labour amongst those living in poor
housing controlled by the employer (see Box 8; although, in this case,
prosecution only followed after considerable coverage and pressure from
themedia).
Box 8: Housing and forced labour in the Netherlands

In July 2009, acting on information from housing officers, the Aliens
Police found 11 Indonesian workers housed in very poor conditions.
SIID arrested the owner of the house and his wife and an Indonesian
gangmaster intermediary (living in his own room with air conditioning);
they later also arrested a contact person in Indonesia (responsible
for recruiting, smuggling and making travel arrangements) who was
discovered through the phone tapping of the wife who had been
released on bail.
Evidence from the irregular migrants indicated high levels of
exploitation: working days of 10 to 15hours for a small salary of 25
to 30 per day, and a high rent for a mattress on the floor in extremely
dirty, unhygienic and unhealthy circumstances. They did not speak
Dutch, did not know the Netherlands, did not have a residence status,
had no money and no family or friends around as support.
The Aliens Police offered the workers a reflection period, as outlined
in the B9 procedure. Four availed themselves of this; the others chose
to return to Indonesia. All were reported to CoMensha, but because it
was unable to immediately find shelter for them, the police arranged
emergency accommodation in hotels and in a holiday house. Over a
week later, when places became available, they moved into a CoMensha
shelter, which was, coincidentally, only two streets away from the house
where they had been exploited.
The four arrested were charged with trafficking in human beings since
the employer had control over both their working and living conditions,
thereby restricting their freedom. In May 2010 The Hague District
Court found the house owner guilty and sentenced him to four years
imprisonment a higher sentence than requested by the public
prosecutor (judgments in the cases of the other three suspects have not
been published).
This case indicates a good level of cooperation between the authorities,
in which the police properly advised and supported the subjects of
forced labour.
Authors: Mijke Houwezjil and Conny Rijken
Campaigning and resistance

Resistance to forced labour is an expression of freedom. It negates both
the depersonalisation imposed by economic circumstances, and the passive
identity imposed on the subjects. Resistance is very difficult, but examples
exist in nearly all the countries researched, taking the forms of selforganisation, strikes, litigation and demonstrations.
37
Most of the national reports identified actions taken by groups of workers

whose experience of abuse at work could be described as forced labour in
that it demonstrated more than one of the indicators for labour exploitation.
Their action then formed a catalyst for policy development or simply drew
the attention of the authorities to the problem of forced labour practices:
In France strikes involving thousands of undocumented workers took
place in 2008 and 2010 organised jointly by the CGT trade union and
several NGOs. They drew attention to the poor working conditions
for sans papiers (those without documentation) in many hotels and
restaurants, and led to government proposals for limited regularisation
programmes. Again in 2011 Paris shop workers who were owed months
of pay took strike action against their employer. CODETRAS has also
used collective litigation as a form of demonstration to highlight issues,
particularly relating to the use of seasonal work permits and contracts
(see Box 3).
With the support of the Netherlands food workers trade union, Polish
workers took strike action in 2005 against excessive hours, low pay,
deductions and charges in lettuce harvesting, and won their case for
unfair dismissal. Twenty Polish temporary agency warehouse workers
who had been subject to intimidation and fines also staged a wildcat strike
that led to the FNV trade union and agency agreeing to end the fines,
to guarantee the right to organise and to allow residential registration
should they wish to settle.
In Sweden the Kommunal union only took up the case of the migrant
berry pickers in northern Sweden (see Box 10) after they organised
demonstrations themselves against unpaid wages. This generated
considerable media coverage, and gained support from local communities.
The campaigning in Ireland by DWAG, an activist network of 200
domestic workers, led to NERA initiating inspections of private
households employing domestic workers. In December 2011 the Forced
Labour Action Group staged a demonstration protesting at government
delays in addressing the problem of forced labour, calling for it to be
recognised as a crime so that victims could be protected.
In Italy undocumented Bangladeshi migrants in Rome organised
themselves to demonstrate for residence permits, while other forms of
self-organisation to resist slave conditions in the domestic and care
sectors have been reported by female migrant workers. The Italian case
study (see Box 9) is another example of grassroots mobilisation that
involved exploited migrant workers as well as their supporters.
Do the trade unions and collective bargaining provide a possible solution?

Unfortunately unions are rarely able to robustly monitor employment law
compliance, even with relatively visible groups of workers (Cremers, 2011),
although they can be significant actors in campaigning against forced labour.
In different European countries unions have supported abusively exploited
workers in strikes and demonstrations and in recovering unpaid wages. Both
unions and NGOs that respond quickly to self-activity by exploited workers
can help make a difference, as, for example, with the cases of domestic
workers in Ireland, berry pickers in Sweden, sans papiers in service industries
in France and agricultural workers in the Netherlands.
38
Summary
Forced labour is imperfectly understood, and not widely recognised as a
phenomenon occurring in the developed world. Where it is acknowledged, it
is approached as being caused by the vulnerability of victims rather than by
deficiencies in the regulation of labour markets and the economy.
However, accepted wisdom regarding forced labour is being challenged,
with various programmes of awareness raising being noted, addressed at
enforcement bodies, legislators and those who might themselves become
subject to forced labour.
Governments, NGOs and other social actors (such as trade unions) are
also focusing more attention on the phenomenon, with key national studies
being conducted that take forced labour out of the trafficking context into
which it had largely been restricted.
Existing provisions for combating trafficking and labour exploitation
are being tested, and have sometimes been found wanting, with some of
those having faced forced labour proving reluctant to make use of existing
mechanisms for responding to trafficking. Consequently, fresh initiatives
have begun, for example, pilot inspections of private households with
domestic staff, or the development of international cooperation between
law enforcement bodies to deal with abusive employers operating across
borders. The need for organisations to respond supportively and effectively
to resistance organised by the workers themselves is also being recognised,
and may show the best results.
39
5What remedies
are available?
Those subjected to forced labour may have been
deprived of their liberty, their health, their identity
documents and certainly money (whether through
extortion or unpaid wages). In this section we
consider what remedies, if any, are available to them
for such abuse. Remedies, such as regaining lost
wages, compensation for injury or punishment of
perpetrators, are presented as distinct from support
(the provision of various types of assistance), which
is examined later in Section 6.
Enforcing employment rights

Two of the ILO and European Commission (2009) indicators of the presence
of abusive labour exploitation are deception concerning remuneration and
withholding of payments. Where there is a minimum wage or an applicable
collective agreement, then abuse of these also infringes basic employment
rights.
Rights to receive proper pay are derived both from contract and from
labour law. Their enforcement may be undertaken by labour inspectors,
law enforcement officers or by the individual worker through courts or
employment tribunals (in person or via a representative, such as a trade
union). Generally, however, stealing the time of a worker by not paying them
is not seen as a criminal offence, and the administrative process of recovery
will often take a longer time than is available to those who have experienced
forced labour (because they are migrants who wish, or are obliged, to return
home, for example).
Polish labour inspectors might award unpaid wages, but where
immigration status challenged the legality of the employment relationship,
this did not help workers having experienced forced labour. Similarly, while
Latvian labour inspectors had a limited capacity to enforce unpaid wages,
40
more often their concerns appeared to be with detecting irregular workers

than enforcing payments.
In France, in contrast, labour inspectors have no powers to force
payment. They can only issue an instruction to an employer, where failure to
comply would be taken into account in civil court proceedings. Workers can
also pursue unpaid wages through tribunals (prudhommes), and this can be
done on their behalf by a trade union. Cases had been brought successfully
by those without authorisation to work, and following Directive 2009/52/
EC proposals are being considered to enable the recovery of unpaid wages
and redundancy payments through penalties on employers for employing
undocumented third-country nationals, even after their deportation.
Enforcement actions coordinated by the Central Office for Combating Illegal
Work (OCLTI) have led to the police or labour inspector taking action against
employers not paying proper wages, or otherwise submitting workers to
conditions beneath human dignity. The 600 French labour inspectors can
enforce the minimum wage and industry-wide collective agreements via the
courts, or by issuing statements that may be used as evidence in tribunals.
Swedish unions will act on behalf of union members in recovering
wages and, where the employer is declared bankrupt and the workers have
employment contracts, the state will pay the basic wages owed. However,
the union membership restriction and the contract requirement mean that
many migrants lack the same employment rights and protection as Swedish
workers. A possibility, however, is that compensation for usury might be
applicable in Swedish cases involving non-payment of wages.
In Italy a trade union or a legal representative can apply to a labour court
judge to require wages to be paid. The amount is calculated with reference
to the relevant collective agreement, but may rely on the worker having
a contract or wage slips as evidence. Where these exist, an injunction can
be issued to accelerate payment, but in forced labour cases, workers rarely
have such documents. In Latvia, however, a change in the law in March 2010
concerning recovery of taxes where no documents exist gives the authorities
the right to levy three months taxes at an average rate, and this principle can
be extended to employment issues such as pay.
In Germany, where there is no national minimum wage, illegal
employment is the responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Finance, which
monitors taxes and contributions paid by employers. Irregular employment
comes under the remit of officials from its Department for the Investigation
of Undeclared Work (Finanzkontrolle Schwarzarbeit), which can prosecute
employers (who can be imprisoned and/or fined) and foreign employees
(who can be fined for working without a work permit and deported). The
contract cleaning, construction and temporary agency work industries
have sector agreements that apply legally to all workers. Since employers
are obliged to pay for work done, irrespective of a workers immigration
status, this enables them to pursue claims for unpaid wages at industrial
tribunals. These claims can accompany prosecutions for trafficking for labour
exploitation (see Box 1), where compensation can also be awarded to the
workers.
NERA in Ireland has some limited powers of enforcement of the minimum
wage, although it can only act in response to specific worker complaints.
Undocumented migrants can be excluded, however, from coverage on the
grounds that they have no legitimate contract that can be enforced.
In the Netherlands the client firms of unregistered temporary labour
agencies are liable to pay the statutory minimum wage to temporary
workers employed by them. Employers using undocumented labour can
also be required to pay up to six months wages at the industry rate if they
What remedies are available?
41
are detected, and those failing to pay the minimum wage can also be fined.
New proposals to implement Directive 2009/52 will establish a chain of
responsibility, allowing the illegally employed worker to claim unpaid wages
from all employers in a chain of subcontractors (commonly in construction).
While this provides greater protection, it does not solve the problem that
the most exploited employees rarely exercise their legal rights, requiring a
procedure by which the national authorities might institute such a claim on
behalf of the employee.
The national reports also provided examples where other organisations
had helped recover unpaid wages. In Germany, the Polish Social Council has
had some success in encouraging and supporting Polish workers to take
up claims for unpaid wages. In Italy, unpaid workers, together with activists
from a migrant workers association, had organised a picket of an employer
(see Box 9). One picket, later charged with defamation and interruption of
commercial services, said: The right to be paid for the work done is at stake...
regular and irregular workers, mostly immigrants, are the first to pay for this
with denial of the fundamental labour right the right to be paid.
Box 9: Mobilising in Italy for the regularisation of building

workers
About 13per cent of the wealthy Reggio Emilia province of the
population of northern Italy is of foreign origin, with most working in
small and medium industrial enterprises, in construction or as domestic
workers in the city of Reggio Emilia, or as farm labourers in the country.
But many also work in the substantial underground economy. In 2007,
when the Provincial Labour Inspection Directorate inspected 1,228
companies, it found breaches of employment regulations in 513
companies, and 1,051 workers were found to be irregular and 460
completely undocumented. Pay was no higher than 34 per hour,
the workers worked very long hours and were intimidated by (foreign
or Italian) gangmasters who used violence, blackmail and threats to
denounce their unlawful status.
Over the last few years the regional anti-trafficking project, Oltre la
Strada, has increasingly dealt with the forced labour problem. Its Plan
for Health and Welfare 20092011 stated:
The numbers concerning labour exploitation are also growing,
involving men and women coming from different countries
and whose form varies widely: from enslavement in certain
manufacturing sweatshops to gangmasters (caporalato) on
building sites; from recruitment through false residence permits
provided by employers to simple undeclared work with
exhausting shifts and reduced pay. The phenomenon is emerging
very slowly also because of difficulties for those involved to lodge
a complaint against it (Reggio Emilia, 2009, p.210).
The project got the local social services to support 11 workers in 2007
and 25 in 2008 under anti-trafficking regulations, as well as 57 workers
in 2007 and 56 in 2008 under programmes against the exploitation of
migrants. Apart from three cases, the nationality of all of their exploiters
was Italian.
42
Citt Migrante, a voluntary association of migrant and Italian workers

in the province, also campaigns against forced labour and severe
labour exploitation. It runs an immigration office and is the local antidiscrimination contact point. In 200810 it supported 70 building
workers with legal assistance, public campaigning and demands for
collective regularisation. This work began several years after it started
receiving reports that construction workers were not being paid on
time, if at all.
Initially Citt Migrante supported the requests for salary payments,
pressing employers directly, and issued injunctions for the claim.
This revealed a much more complex and troubling reality: it was not
simply about late payment of wages, but systemic exploitation in
the construction sector including irregular work, document forgery,
blackmail, threats and violence. The police then investigated and made
several arrests. Twelve ItalEdil company officials were accused of
conspiracy to exploit undocumented workers and falsifying documents;
two directors were accused (although they were later acquitted) of
having kidnapped, beaten and covered with a flammable liquid an
immigrant worker who asked to be paid for his work.
The investigations exposed two types of recruitment and exploitation
of workers by some construction companies. Moldovan workers were
recruited to be paid 2 per hour, with deductions being made for their
transport, and they were then housed in inhumane conditions with false
residence permits and employed in building sites in Italy; North African
workers without residence permits were forced to sign employment
contracts under false names. Both groups of workers were blackmailed
with the threat of being reported as undocumented, and many were
beaten and received death threats when they demanded payment of
their wages.
The outcomes were important. The joint actions of Citt Migrante
and other organisations led to the regularisation of an entire group of
workers, who were granted residence permits according to Article 18
(for severe labour exploitation). This was an exemplary and innovative
result that has much wider implications.
The fact that the mobilisation was grassroots, with migrants organising
themselves and demonstrating to assert their own rights, created a local
dynamic to defend not only their individual rights, but also the rights of all.
The mobilisation not only protected the interests of a group of building
workers, but it also helped publicly expose the existence of a system of
forced labour in Reggio Emilia. By going public and supporting a picket
of the offices of one of the firms by the workers, Citt Migrante forced
the city to face up to the issue of labour exploitation. In May 2011 this
strategy finally led, through joint action with other local associations,
to the municipality of Reggio Emilia formally agreeing to institute a civil
action against undeclared work in the city.
Author: Fabio Perocco
The German Institute for Human Rights has initiated a joint project with
the EVZ foundation,7 called Forced labour today Empowering trafficked
people, to provide test cases for claiming wages and compensation under the
Victims Compensation Act.
43
Excessive working days or hours is a strong indicator of labour

exploitation in the ILO and European Commission (2009) list. Each of the
national reports cited cases involving excessive hours and the absence of
breaks in reports of forced labour. However, none gave examples of the
European Working Time Directive (2003/88) being invoked.
This is partly because of the legal contract syndrome. Thus in the
Netherlands and Sweden, the contract must be in writing to be enforceable,
offering the unscrupulous employer a simple means of avoiding enforcement.
Changes are being proposed to this practice in the Netherlands to make
enforcement less difficult for workers in vulnerable situations. But in Sweden,
the Working Hours and Annual Leave Acts which enable workers to apply
in court for damages (or penal sanctions) in cases of abuse only concern
employees defined as having written employment contracts.
However, it is recognised that working time rights in general may
not be well enforced. A 2010 report by the European Commission on
implementation of the Working Time Directive pointed out that monitoring
and enforcement was a problem, with strong concerns being expressed over
this in 11 member states (including Germany, Italy and Poland). The report
identified the sectors displaying particular problems as being hotels and
catering, tourism, construction, public health, retail and security (European
Commission, 2010).
Partly too, the absence of action under the Working Time Directive
reflects low expectations. Thus on their recruitment in Poland, seasonal
workers wanting to work in Sweden stated that they would not seek
vacations, and subsequently did not expect to recover holiday pay.
Another problem faced by inspection and enforcement bodies is the
system of subcontracting in use in some industries (as referred to in the
Spanish case study, for example). The ILO points this out in their report on
labour inspection:
inspectors themselves report about difficulties to ensure compliance
along sub-contracting chains. In economic sectors in which subcontracting is common, such as construction or cleaning, small
enterprises close down frequently only to open up elsewhere. As
noted above, some European countries have enacted laws on joint
liability but these need to be enforced effectively. (ILO, 2010)
The problems encountered included identifying the employer when the
sole purpose of the contract may be to separate the contractor from any
obligation as employer from those actually carrying out the work concerned.
In addition, particularly when the subcontractor may only exist as an
organisation on paper, identifying the liable party for employers obligations
was difficult where they were based in a country other than the one in which
the work was carried out.
Compensation for forced labour

Although the Council of Europe Convention requires that there should be
a system for compensating those subjected to trafficking, compensation for
those who have experienced forced labour is quite rare, and usually subject
to qualifications. In Italy, compensation could be paid for unfair dismissal,
but not on the basis of criminal offences associated with forced labour. In
Spain it is an option, but only for victims of violent crime and sexual slavery.
In Sweden, compensation may be paid if the violation of the workers rights
44
was committed by the state or municipality, but does not apply if by private
entities. Although there is no formal victim restitution programme, the
Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority sometimes awarded
compensation to trafficking victims. However, when a Chinese restaurant
worker in Gothenborg, who had been made to work an 80-hour week for a
low wage, out of which he paid high rent, approached the union (HRF), the
union demanded compensation calculated on his overtime hours, sick leave
benefits and vacation allowance. This amounted to 391,000 kronor, including
back pay and compensation for his suffering, while the restaurant also
paid 100,000 kronor in compensation to the union for violating collective
agreements.
In France small sums (1,000) were paid by the local authorities who
had unlawfully denied seasonal workers employment and residence rights
rather than by the employers who had taken advantage of their resulting
vulnerability. In theory, trafficking victims are eligible to receive restitution
through the Crime Victims Compensation Programme, but by 2011 only two
had received compensation through the programme since its inception; it is
not known if either could have been classified as subject to forced labour.
In the Netherlands, where trafficking victims can register a claim for
compensation, only a minority do so. There are three ways in which a victim
may obtain compensation: (i) in criminal proceedings, (ii) in civil proceedings
and (iii) through the Violent Offences Compensation Fund (Schadefonds
Geweldsmisdrijven). Because civil proceedings are lengthy and costly, the
most common route for compensation is to obtain it in criminal proceedings
and/or request payment from the Violent Offences Compensation Fund.
The low sums awarded may partly account for this, but also, until recently,
the individual was responsible for enforcing the award. The newly established
measures (schadevergoedingsmaatregel) make the state responsible for
paying compensation if the perpetrator does not. This was not previously
the case, even if the perpetrator had been imprisoned for non-payment.
Compensation may also be claimed from the Criminal Injuries Compensation
Fund where serious physical or psychological damage has occurred.
In Germany, it is also possible to claim under the German Crime Victims
Compensation Act (Opferentschdigungsgesetz), but this can be difficult,
and the project set up to assist those affected to assert claims for wages
and compensation against perpetrators and exercise these rights had
few applicants. In Poland, those subject to trafficking (which may include
those experiencing forced labour) can, in theory, file civil suits against their
exploiters, and while compensatory claims may be filed by state prosecutors,
their performance in this respect was not judged adequate by the UN Special
Rapporteur on trafficking.
The Latvian state Labour Inspectorate, if it finds that a company is
employing irregular workers, can assume that they have worked for the
company for three months on a minimum salary. In this case, the worker will
get compensation in terms of social and income tax paid for him/her, which,
in turn, allows him/her later to be entitled to social benefits, and this could
apply to those subject to forced labour.
In Ireland certain cases of substantial financial compensation have been
awarded for violations of their employment rights to exploited domestic
workers, in one case reaching 33,000.
45
Taking criminal prosecutions

What is the value of criminal prosecutions over forced labour compared to
civil or administrative actions? It is difficult to compare the possible benefits
to those having experienced forced labour of seeing their abusers punished
with those gained from the restitution of at least unpaid wages. There are
also different evidential requirements between criminal and civil cases, and
in balancing this there may be greater likelihood of securing temporary
residence when acting as a witness in a criminal case.
Thus it is more difficult to secure convictions for imposing slavery under
the Penal Code in Italy than through pursuing administrative offences related
to combating irregular work, although the penalties for the former are likely
to be more severe.
In Spain, too, the difficulties presented in seeking penal sanctions mean
that where there is any legal action at all, the subjects of forced labour
usually opt for an administrative one. While civil courts may impose more
lenient sanctions, the case will be easier to prove. However, provisions for
temporary stay were more likely to be provided to those taking part in
criminal prosecutions than to those pursuing employment rights cases.
Yet there is also a question as to whether pursuing perpetrators for their
criminal offence against the public good is necessarily supportive of the
victim. Where formal support is on offer it may be taken up, but in both the
Netherlands and Spain, examples have shown some workers preferring to
seek further work rather than accepting support that may sustain them but
cannot feed their families. For the state to only pursue civil cases, however,
would be to reduce forced labour to little more than a breach of employment
rights, and could leave perpetrators free to offend repeatedly. A solution
could be that detailed in the German (Box 1) and French (Box 2) examples,
whereby both types of case could be pursued simultaneously.
Summary
Access to economic remedies (for unpaid or underpaid wages, for example)
may be restricted for those who have experienced forced labour. By their
nature, they are likely to be working in undeclared jobs or even (by virtue of
their immigration status) unlawful ones. In some countries, this means that
the contracts are unenforceable by inspectors or through application to the
courts. A further hurdle may be the processes for restitution themselves
only in some cases can an intermediary, such as a trade union, conduct a case
on the workers behalf. The time taken for procedures may be so long as to
deter workers from resorting to them. Advice and support may also be in
short supply.
NGOs and unions have found means to assist at least some workers
in pursuing their rights. These responses have been ad hoc rather than
systematic, although initiatives aimed at assisting migrants (particularly
undocumented migrant workers) have found themselves campaigning and
representing those who have been subject to forced labour. It is worth
noting, however, that such services are less likely to reach EU migrants or
nationals in the same position.
Labour inspectors and the police featured prominently among those
identifying forced labour. However, although excessive working hours
featured regularly in reports of forced labour, there was little evidence of
inspection or enforcement of working time rights being used to detect or
prevent it.
46
Having been identified, cases of forced labour may qualify for

compensation, but this seemed not to be a well-used mechanism. It may
depend on there having been a criminal prosecution, and as we see in the
national reports, this presents challenges of proof, for example. This
suggests that the practice of pursuing several legal routes simultaneously
may offer the best option to those experiencing forced labour.
47
6Supporting
those subject to
forced labour
We now look at other social support provided to
those having experienced forced labour, such as the
provision of assistance with accessing public services
and welfare.
The labour market contexts that might lead to a worker experiencing forced
labour principally, poverty, immigration status, no awareness or knowledge
of welfare or employment rights and a lack of alternatives can also leave
them exposed to further risk even after their exploitation has been detected.
Where employers have provided accommodation, loss of their job (or escape
from it) can render the worker homeless, and irregular immigration status
can also leave them outside state healthcare and social security.
The need for social support is recognised for trafficking victims in the
Council of Europe Convention and by EU Directive 2011/36, but in many
countries the emphasis on trafficking excludes forced labour subjects who
cannot fulfil the national criteria for having been trafficked for labour
exploitation.
An exception is Italy. Funded centrally and regionally, and delivered
through both public and third sector organisations, the programmes were
originally conceived as helping those involved in prostitution and drug abuse,
and then adapted to assist and help the social integration of trafficking
victims. Now they also support severely exploited workers, potentially
including those who have experienced forced labour with a wide range of
initiatives reflecting locally identified needs.
In the Netherlands, in contrast, CoMensha centrally coordinates all parties
involved in the shelter and support of victims of trafficking (such as the
police, aid organisations and lawyers) through 11 municipal networks. They
may support those subject to forced labour, but only if there is some form of
immigration offence. CoMensha first allocates the individual to a municipal
care coordinator who finds them shelter and then arranges for psychological
care, a health check-up and legal aid. But since each municipality has its
48
own network, the system is not yet entirely robust, with only eight key care
coordinators having been appointed at the time of writing.
Housing support
Both the Palermo Protocol and Council of Europe Convention propose that
accommodation should be made available to the victims of trafficking, and
the EU Directive 2011/36 sets out minimum levels of support. However,
not only does the sexual trafficking focus mean there is often little provision
for men despite the provisions supposedly applying to victims regardless of
gender, but there is also often a clash between the punitive and immigrationbased aims of the anti-trafficking initiatives and the essentially economic
projects of many of the workers themselves.
In the Netherlands, 50 places were made available for trafficking victims
under a pilot programme in 2010, but only 10 of these were for men. In
Spain, the system for achieving regularised status for undocumented workers
is run by the CEPAIM Foundation, supported by funding from the EU and
national and regional governments. It offers partial payment of between one
and three months rent and could benefit forced labour subjects.
The French CCEM assists by finding volunteers who can accommodate
victims in the short term, and has one safe house of its own. The government
funds this, supplemented by a number of other public and voluntary sources.
Access to official emergency housing is severely restricted and is only rarely
granted to victims of exploitative domestic work. The governments antitrafficking protection programme (which includes those trafficked for labour
exploitation), named Ac-S, is managed through a network of 49 shelters
operated by NGOs but partly funded by government and the City of Paris.
In 2011 over 60 people were provided with shelter, legal, medical and
psychological services.
In Italy there is patchy local provision for temporary stay in safe houses,
while workers in Latvia who experienced labour exploitation were also able to
use a safe house for trafficking victims. This provides social rehabilitation for
up to six months, and is state-funded, supplemented by donations.
In Poland housing provision is linked firmly to the anti-trafficking system
run on behalf of the state by NGO La Strada. It is available during the
reflection period offered to trafficking victims. The organisation has its own
shelter in Warsaw, and may access other organisations facilities in other
parts of the country.
Healthcare
Workers who have been subjected to forced labour are likely to have
experienced excessive working hours, poor health and safety provision and
unhealthy living conditions. The Italian national report cited Pakistani and
Bangladeshi workers having been obliged to share accommodation with
farm animals, and consequently suffering serious health problems (OIM
Italia, 2010), and in the Netherlands Indonesian agricultural workers were
found to have been subjected to extremely dirty, unhygienic and unhealthy
conditions.
In Italy forced labour subjects are accompanied to health services and
provided with a health insurance card and, in some places, appropriate
psychological support. In other countries certain organisations specifically
provide healthcare. The Ban Ying organisation in Germany, which works with
Supporting those subject to forced labour
49
female domestic workers (and especially targets those from South East Asia
working in foreign diplomatic households) provides medical and psychosocial
support. It was founded by the Berlin Senate Office for Women in 1988, and
still obtains much of its funding from the Senate. Frances CCEM also offers
some health and psychological support for victims, again primarily domestic
workers, who may have been deprived of food, medicine and hygiene during
their servitude.
Poland offers limited support. Trafficking victims can only access
healthcare through La Strada, and this support excludes those subject
to forced labour alone. In some countries such as Sweden, however,
undocumented migrants do not have free of charge access to any healthcare,
even in the case of emergency or pregnancy.
Subsistence
Surviving after detection is particularly difficult for those having been subject
to forced labour practices. The countries researched offered little to subjects
of forced labour by way of subsistence, except where they were witnesses in
criminal prosecutions. In Sweden, supermarkets, churches and other groups
gave voluntary donations of food to the berry pickers (see Box 10). During
the strikes by the sans papiers in hotels, restaurants and shops in France
during 2008, trade unions and NGOs were also prominent in collecting funds
to support the strikers, who might otherwise have gone hungry. In France
the CCEM also provides some limited subsistence funds to the domestic
workers it is assisting.
Under the German Asylum Seekers Assistance Law possible witnesses
who have experienced forced labour can receive welfare assistance of 194
per month. In some cases, determined by local authorities, individuals may
take temporary work. The Polish system of support may provide some
financial assistance for board and clothing, but again, this is restricted to
those cooperating with prosecutions.
In Italy, in contrast, full board may be provided on a temporary basis to
individuals considered appropriate by local authorities.
Education
Education provision for victims of trafficking is also considered in the
Palermo Protocol and (for children) in the Council of Europe Convention,
and potentially, at least, this could be available to those subjected to forced
labour. In Latvia, the IOM supported language training in Riga on an ad hoc
basis, while in Italy, literacy, vocational training, Italian language and work
orientation might all be provided via NGOs at regional level. Ac-S in France
also offers assistance with French language classes.
Legal support
The Council of Europe Convention requires that, where a system of free
legal aid exists, it should apply to those subjected to trafficking, and although
this is not specifically envisaged in the Palermo Protocol, the provision of
legal support is common across the nine countries. In Germany, the German
Institute for Human Rights and EVZ foundation provide targeted advocacy,
as does the womens support Berlin NGO, Ban Ying. In Poland the Social
50
Council offers support for employment tribunal cases where there has been
severe labour exploitation. MRCI likewise provides assistance to those who
have faced exploitation to take employment cases to tribunals. In Latvia
the Human Rights Centre can provide help with legal cases (if they involve
discrimination or human rights issues), but fear of retribution by their
employers on the part of those experiencing the abuse hampers their work.
In France both CCEM (domestic workers) and CODETRAS (seasonal
agricultural workers) target particular cases for high profile legal actions,
but also provide advice or representation to exploited workers. It is not
clear to what extent this patchwork of provision can be said to comply with
the Council of Europe Convention. Some of the NGOs receive state (or
municipal) support in order to provide free legal aid, but others do so as part
of their charitable (or pro bono) activity. Trade unions can also play a part,
and in Sweden (see Box 10), the Netherlands and France, they take cases
on behalf of their members (rather than simply providing representation to
members taking cases on their own behalf). Unions in Netherlands can also
take legal action to enforce collective agreements.
Box 10: Berry pickers in Sweden: a case study in forced labour

In Sweden berries are much prized by the pharmaceutical industry.
Each year since 2000 hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of
foreign migrant workers have flown to Sweden to participate in
the commercialised harvesting of berries, an arduous and low-paid
occupation, involving long hours of painstaking work, in often dank
mosquito-ridden forests. They come not only from the Baltics, Russia
and Poland, but more often from Far East countries such as Thailand,
Bangladesh, China and Vietnam.
The Swedish government granted a number of Swedish and Thai
food and beverage companies licenses to import berry pickers for
the season in 2007. Between then and 2010 it is estimated that the
number of Thai and other foreign pickers who arrived in Scandinavia via
such companies with formal employment contracts was approximately
23,000, and a further 7,000 came as tourists.
For example, rice farmers from Thailands poorer north-eastern
provinces travel to Sweden for a three-month berry-picking season, and
then return to harvest their own crop in the autumn. The cost of travel,
accommodation and food can amount to 100,000 baht (approximately
2,300). Many borrow from money lenders of various kinds to finance
the trip. The potential rewards are enticing, despite reported abuse of
their compatriots and predecessors, increased travel costs or the fact
that finding wild berries has become more difficult in recent years. In
the best case, migrants can return home with as much as 46,000
saved for three months work. Many migrants, however, return with their
promised rewards denied, and even more deeply in debt.
In 2010, migrant berry-picking workers decided to take matters into
their own hands. After just a week in Sweden, in early August 2010,
faced with the appalling prospect of their near-certain financial ruin,
170 Chinese berry pickers began a 15-kilometre overnight protest
march from Lngsjby to Storuman (the nearest community in remote
southern Lapland), carrying hand-drawn placards with SOS and Help
51
messages. Local social services personnel claimed they were unable to

assist the berry pickers due to lack of language facilities.
One week later, further to the south, Vietnamese berry pickers marched
with their banners through Nordmaling (a small town with a population
of less than 800 on Swedens north east coast). The previous year,
they had been promised that they would be able to pick 60 to 120kg
of berries a day. In reality, they were lucky if they could manage 10
to 30kg. Most had not fully understood that picking berries meant
searching for them in difficult terrain rather than harvesting cultivated
berries (Interview, Kommunal, 14April 2011). In 2010 a minimum
wage had been promised guaranteeing them at least 16,372 kronor
per month (1,745), which had to be met with production quotas, and
was hardly enough to cover the costs of their journey to Sweden and
the travel and accommodation costs once they had arrived. Some 70
Vietnamese pickers decided on more direct action to draw attention to
their low wages. They locked up their supervisors, resulting in the local
police being called to establish order and to protect the supervisors, a
couple of whom appeared to have been beaten up.
A key case involving Swedish trade unions occurred at the Lomsj Br
AB company in southern Lapland. Their recruitment advertisement
had promised a daily rate of about 800SEK (85). In Spring 2010, a
recruiting agent in Thailand advertised over local radio in the province of
Chaiyapum for pickers for the company. A recruitment fee was charged,
with a down payment of 590, with the remainder to be advanced by
the company then reclaimed from wages.
But in mid-July, the recruits were informed that Lomsj Br would not
be able to advance the balance. Only 156 recruits were able to find the
additional money, mainly by borrowing from relatives or money lenders.
The agent refused to return funds to those who did not. A complaint
against the agent in the local labour office is ongoing in Thailand, but
the individual concerned has disappeared.
It was soon revealed that an introductory DVD workers had seen in
Thailand had downplayed the hardships. Some pickers explained to
a Thai-speaking trade unionist from Kommunal that they had the
impression that access to the fruit would be much easier than it turned
out to be they would have to climb hills, not mountains, in the search
for berries. Nor had they thought they should see living bears just a few
hundred metres away.
The individual work contracts were already weak from a Swedish
perspective. According to their terms, there was no guarantee that a
berry picker could earn enough money to not go home in debt. Lomsj
Br guaranteed (verbally) that pickers would receive a net income of not
less than 50,000 baht, that Sunday picking would earn a cash bonus etc.
By the end of August the Lomsj Br pickers had been paid
6,000 kronor, after which they received nothing. When, on their
25September pay day the pickers did not receive either their
outstanding wages from August or their wages for the whole of
September, they decided to march through the streets of sele. Their
protest was widely publicised in the Swedish media. The rally was seen
on television by a local unionist, and this trigger made the trade union,
Kommunal, engage in the case. At the same time, it further transpired
that the main owner of Lomsj Br, Ari Hallikainen, had emptied the
52
company bank account (reportedly of about 4million Swedish kronor)

and had left Sweden.
Kommunals first step was to get members among the workers, in order
to be able to represent them. However, they had neither the money
nor the willingness to become union members. A clause in Kommunals
statutes allowed workers less than 26years old three months free
membership, and Kommunal got three qualifying people to become
members; it now had the legal right to represent them and to take
action against Lomsj Br AB.
But to meet all the Thai workers claims for compensation, Kommunal
had to go on to a second step, which was to file a bankruptcy petition
against Lomsj Br AB. If the company went into liquidation, workers
who had claims would automatically be covered by the governmental
salary guarantee, and the Swedish state would compensate them for
loss of earnings. In December 2010, the official receiver found that
most of the workers had the right to reimbursement, although only for
their basic salary, and not for overtime etc. The workers then accepted
the offer.
The Swedish model of industrial relations has some perhaps surprising
weaknesses, especially when it comes to protecting the rights of a
transnational migrant workforce in the face of exploitation, essentially
amounting to a condition of forced labour. The regulatory and judicial
authorities seem to have been slow to react to an ongoing pattern
of deception in recruitment and the defrauding of workers wages by
illegal deductions (two key criteria). The abuse only became a public
policy concern in 2010 because of a flagrant episode of wage theft
and because the workers themselves undertook unprecedented public
protest actions against their conditions of employment. Redress was
uneven, although within limits the trade unions offered legal support.
Some, but not all, local authorities where the migrants were located
provided material support. In particular, the local supermarkets in
affected communities offered support, as did concerned groups of
citizens and the churches, through their charitable organisations. Yet
the exploitative conditions suffered by these migrants in one of the
best organised labour markets in the EU raises a troubling and only
incompletely answered question: if Sweden cannot prevent such
extreme forms of labour abuse occurring within its own highly regulated
labour market, either by legal proscription or by the countervailing
actions of an active civil society, what possibilities exist to prevent the
drift towards forced labour elsewhere in the European space?
Authors: Charles Woolfson and Christer Thornqvist
Residence permits
Although rendered complex through its relationship with migration,
considerable work has been done by campaigners to see as a whole the
issues of human and labour rights and the outright criminality of trafficking
for labour exploitation. It is often the immigration status of the worker
that renders them particularly vulnerable to forced labour practices they
may have few other options than to stay with an abusive employer. For
this reason, several national reports examined the issue of offering those
53
experiencing forced labour some form of regularisation of their immigration

status. This would only be of value, of course, to those requiring specific
permission to remain, and so offered little to national citizens or those from
the EU.
The National Referral Mechanism (NRM), through which states fulfil
their obligations to trafficked people (see the Palermo Protocol above), is
the principal route for regulating, albeit temporarily, workers immigration
statuses, although similar provisions are set out in Directive 2004/81 on
residence permits (see above).
Both measures refer to the possibility of providing those subject to
trafficking with housing, counselling, information, healthcare, legal advice and
possibly opportunities for education and employment. States must provide
a temporary stay of any possible deportation, to permit the individual to
consider whether he or she wishes to cooperate with any investigation. The
precise manner in which these measures are carried out varies from one
country to another, as the following examples show.
In the Netherlands, the NRM is known as the B9 procedure, and is
administered by the police after reference of the individuals by other
agencies. They include the issue of a temporary residence permit for
a reflection period and longer if the individual is cooperating with the
prosecution of an abuser. This does not entitle the individual to work
(although they can also apply for a residence permit under exceptional
circumstances, even if they do not want to press charges).
The Irish Immigration Residence and Protection Bill proposes a recovery
and reflection period of 45 days for trafficking victims, and up to a further six
months for those cooperating as witnesses. Similarly in France, those victims
who testify or lodge a complaint against their exploiter or trafficker may
benefit from a temporary residence permit.
In Spain, however, it is reported that many of those offered
accommodation rights as potential witnesses declined it, preferring to find
work elsewhere or to return home.
None of the reports mentioned provision of identity documents or
bridging visas being provided specifically in cases of forced labour.
Regularising workers status

One and it is only one of the factors contributing to workers
susceptibility to forced labour is thought to be irregular immigration status.
Because this may render the worker liable to removal or prosecution by
the authorities, they become reluctant to approach enforcement bodies.
Furthermore, in those cases where such status might render employment
contracts unenforceable, the workers may have very few rights to enforce.
In the Italian national report it was suggested that general programmes
of regularisation may be preferable to NRM-related temporary residence
permits for those who experienced forced labour. This would permit them
to improve their circumstances by changing employer and gaining rights
without first having to prove that their abusive employment was bad enough
to qualify. One campaign (see Box 9) led to residence permits being issued to
70 exploited workers, and over the last three decades more than 1.5million
previously undocumented workers have benefited from such regularisations.
In Spain qualification for a temporary residence (and work) permit has
been introduced for undocumented migrants who have worked for at least
six months and have committed no crimes. But the work has to be confirmed
by the Labour Inspectorate a near impossibility for those in forced labour
54
and the permit issued by a magistrate, a lengthy process during which the
worker remains precarious. In Barcelona only 806 workers qualified between
2006 and 2009.
The French experience of conditional regularisations for undocumented
workers (sans papiers) in retail and restaurants was that relatively few
could fulfil the criteria, so many remained undocumented. The latest
programme resulted from strikes and other campaigning on the part of
undocumented workers, but it requires documentation of lengthy work
experience (12months out of the last 24 for temporary workers). Only 200
regularisations actually took place in the nine months to April 2011.
No general provisions in the nine countries existed for regularising the
immigration status of those who had been subject to forced labour. This
could sometimes occur for groups of workers who proved themselves
vulnerable. In Italy special six-month (renewable) residence permits are
available in cases of violence or severe exploitation. These may be granted
by the Provincial Police Headquarters (Questura) where there is a trafficking
prosecution in which the individual concerned is the complainant, or where
it is requested by local authorities or NGOs providing social and integration
support, and where the individual does not wish to pursue a complaint. This
originally applied solely to cases of prostitution, but now covers severe labour
exploitation, and EU citizens as well as third-country nationals.
In Poland regularisation is only available to some victims of trafficking
(including for labour exploitation, but not for forced labour alone) on
condition that they sever all ties with the traffickers, an option that may
be difficult to take up since it may leave them without accommodation or
support.
As a response to vulnerability caused by irregular immigration status,
actors in the countries examined viewed regularisation positively. However,
it cannot aid those from EU countries who already have (at least) the right of
residence, nor citizens of the host country, whose vulnerability is not related
to immigration status.
Retrieving identity documents

Workers identity documents are often held by the employer in cases
of forced labour, in order to exercise additional control. Thus Latvian
construction workers sent to Germany in 2009 had their documents taken
from them, and were then farmed out to other employers for as little as 50
per week. While some were assisted to return by Latvian local authorities,
no prosecutions occurred. Ukrainian farm workers in Poland also had their
passports held by their employer. When the employer claimed to be looking
after them, the charge of restricting their freedom was declared unproven
and several were deported (Leniewski and Krajewska, 2011).
When a worker reports labour exploitation to the Italian authorities, the
police may remove their passport from an employer to use as evidence,
returning it after the prosecution has ended. The Irish Employment Permits
Act makes it an offence for employers to retain workers identity documents
where the worker is subject to a work permit.
Support for retrieving documents, however, appeared from the national
reports to be rare, and beyond these examples no particular provisions were
reported. This may be because there is some lack of clarity as to ownership
most passports are considered to be the property of the issuing state, rather
than of the bearer.
55
Summary
Much of the support provided betrays its origins in anti-trafficking initiatives,
with a focus on a supposed clientele of women who may have been involved
in prostitution or other sex work. The relationship with other elements of
the NRM may render the support unattractive to those who, despite having
been abused by one employer, see the necessity to find another as taking
precedence over return (for migrants) or rehabilitation. Where the provision
of support is less rigidly controlled (as in Italy, for example), it seems that
more are able to make use of it, including those who may have been exposed
to forced labour, without this being a precondition for such access.
A focus in the national reports was the provision of support relating
to immigration status, reflecting the close (but by no means exclusive)
relationship between migration and forced labour. However, there was no
general provision for regularisation for migrants exposed to forced labour,
although key actors clearly regard this as an important protective measure.
In terms of other support healthcare, education and legal support,
for example those exposed to forced labour had no specific provision,
but might be entitled to use those services provided for trafficking victims.
These tend to be quite limited, but also are not frequently taken up. This
may argue for service provision more closely related to what the workers
themselves see as the priority, rather than that set down, for example, in the
Palermo Protocols.
56
7Conclusions
This report aimed to show how those who
experience forced labour are, or might be, supported
or protected by government (national, regional
or local) or by civil society organisations. It has
proved difficult to locate provisions that are clearly
directed towards forced labour. In general, European
governments approach forced labour solely as an
element of trafficking. The twin aims of enforcing
immigration controls and submitting trafficking
perpetrators to criminal sanctions take precedence
over protecting the employment or human rights
of those subjected to forced labour. This emphasis
on trafficking risks transforming the lack of workers
autonomy present in forced labour into an absence
of autonomy in their choice between being returned
to their home countries or remaining in work.
Furthermore, it offers little to those who are not
migrants, or who may be EU nationals.
The problem of forced labour

Forced labour is widespread throughout Europe, but little is done about it,
and even less is done for those who experience it. Some of the arguments
used to justify this are:
the problem is too diffuse or small scale to warrant systematic responses;
an effective response would require severely restricting employer
prerogatives, too strong an intervention for labour markets and
employment relations;
57
problematising migrants and irregular immigration is a more politically

popular focus of enforcement activity;
the NRMs for trafficking victims are said by national administrations to be
adequate;
forced labour is thought to largely involve non-citizens, who do not share
the rights and freedoms of the national citizen;
where workers participate in illegal employment, they may not qualify for
enforceable employment rights.
These discourses reflect the way in which the law is framed. Thus, while there
is a choice in conceiving illegality in terms of the perpetrator or the subject,
in none of the nine countries was the term illegal employer used, while in all,
the terms illegal immigrant or undeclared worker dominated.
Trafficking offences then tend to focus on the punishment of the
perpetrators rather than on assisting the workers subject to it. Some
provisions that are then conditional on borders having been crossed and/or
on cooperation on the part of the subject in prosecutions of perpetrators
often exclude those most in need of support, whose requirement to
continue to work can return them to equally precarious situations.
The punishment focus is a legitimate concern and imprisonment an
important deterrent, but they may overshadow the interests of the individual
worker as long as the definition of labour exploitation is unclear, the
thresholds of proof are high and the probability of restitution low. It seems
there may also be a risk of judicial maximalism as judges apply rigorous tests
for what constitutes exploitation (the Netherlands) or offences against
human dignity (France).
The trafficking-focused approach also results in an even greater lack
of reliable data on forced labour than there is on trafficking. The largely
anecdotal evidence we have gathered suggests that exploitation and
forced labour are more likely in certain industries (such as domestic work,
agriculture and construction) than others, but it is not conclusive. However,
that forced labour can nevertheless be detected so widely begs another
question: is extreme exploitation of workers inevitable where they are
vulnerable, and if so, why is this? Our research was not framed to answer
this, but it may be that enforcement of workers employment and human
rights, while necessary, is not adequate to prevent forced labour, and we
must also examine critically the assumptions underlying the operation of the
European economy.
Most of the emphasis within this report is on actions that are, or should
be, taken by the state in response to a phenomenon that is unlawful under
international and (usually) national law. However, there is a moral case for all
actors in society to respond. There are examples of trade unions and NGOs
having done so in this report, but we also point to the likelihood of forced
labour occurring in supply chains, where it would be susceptible to detection
and elimination by diligent use of codes of practice on the part of major
purchasers of goods and services, and by consumers, for that matter.
Defining the offence

Difficulties and differences in defining vulnerability and exploitation
contribute to the problem. Within the mosaic of national legal traditions
and employment relations systems across the nine European countries it
appears that, while the overarching political concern is with trafficking, there
are countries that see forced labour more as abusive exploitation resulting
58
from broken or non-existent employment contracts (Sweden, Germany, the

Netherlands), and ones that emphasise vulnerability and breaches of human
rights (Italy, Spain, France).
Thus although the Netherlands Supreme Court recognised it is
impossible to answer the question whether a certain situation amounts to
exploitation in general, in the particular case it decided that all three of the
following elements had to be proved to secure a criminal conviction: the
nature and duration of the employment, the restrictions to the employee
resulting from such employment, and the financial gain of the employer
(SCN, 2009). In France a lack of legal clarity in defining slavery and forced
labour means that potentially less serious charges of wages or living and
working conditions contrary to human dignity are pursued more often.
It is not clear, however, which is the best option for the workers
themselves. Criminal sanctions are deployed by the state in defence of
the public good, but if this prevents or delays unduly the redress most
immediately needed by those subject to forced labour, it can hardly be
wondered at that they may decline to participate in such proceedings (see
below).
Accidental detection?
The authorities may detect forced labour in relation to immigration offences,
undeclared work and social security or tax avoidance, or it may be detected
by labour inspectors or even housing officials. It is also reported by NGOs
dealing with specific groups, such as seasonal agricultural workers in France
and Spain, domestic violence victims in Latvia or domestic workers in Ireland.
This almost accidental detection reflects the extent of the gap between
the mainstream economy with labour market regulation framed by collective
bargaining, trade union representation and/or formal employment contracts,
and the rest, dominated by precarious work and the absence of effective
regulation. However, we also show how forced labour practices can be found
in the supply chains of that mainstream economy.
The lack of purposeful detection is well illustrated by the absence of
examples of excessive working hours acting as a trigger for detection.
Although a strong indicator of labour exploitation and the basis of an EU
health and safety directive, working time regulation is virtually unused as
a means to identify or remedy forced labour practices. The Commissions
own examination of the implementation of the Working Time Directive
makes no reference to trafficking, forced labour or exploitation, although
it acknowledges problems in enforcement across the board (European
Commission, 2010).
The explanation for this neglect of a key instrument in dealing with
forced labour is that excessive working time is both seen as much more
controversial and as a less severe offence than dealing with trafficking
(especially for sexual exploitation). Helping victims (particularly if they are
seen as young, female and powerless) appears to be preferred to providing
support to workers who want to defend themselves (Jaksic, 2008).

It is also clear that many government agencies, labour inspectors, advice
organisations and trade unions are often unfamiliar with the indicators of
forced labour. This lack of knowledge is even more marked among the media
Conclusions
59
and public in general. Some information and training exercises as well as

awareness-raising campaigns aimed at remedying this deficit were reported,
yet these did not always emphasise the differences between undocumented
work, trafficking and forced labour.
The workers themselves may also not see themselves as victims either
of trafficking or of forced labour. They may not be aware of the offence of
forced labour (or of trafficking for labour exploitation), and simply ensuring
they become better informed does not necessarily translate into them
wishing to proceed with a complaint. They may also fear retribution by the
employer against their own family members in order to deter complaints.
Much depends on the nature of state action.
Effective redress
State responses that focus on immigration offences seem to offer little to
the workers concerned. Usually these workers need to be earning money,
sometimes to pay debts incurred in the process of entering the country
or finding the work, but in any case to survive and support dependents
at home. Enforcement responses that hamper, rather than help, them to
continue to earn for example, by restricting their right to work while any
prosecution against their exploiters is prepared are likely to be avoided,
or if commenced, soon abandoned by the workers. Worries about their
potential removal from the host country (where they are irregular migrants)
are also likely to reduce the likelihood of workers complaining about their
treatment by employers in the first place. When workers do opt for return,
however, it is important that systems exist permitting the pursuit of cases
and compensation in their absence.
The scarcity of forced labour cases in the courts makes it difficult to
assess the effectiveness of criminal law. Cases involving some of the ILO
and European Commission (2009) indicators are more likely to have been
pursued through civil or employment law routes, for reasons of the speed
of process, the burden of proof or to secure some sort of compensation for
loss. However, in many cases it seems that the very exploitation of which
the worker may wish to complain may also render the worker ineligible
for restitution: in some countries their initial unlawful employment status
deprives them of any other employment rights.
Initiatives challenging other forms of labour market abuse, such as
undeclared work or false self-employment and underpaid or unpaid wages,
might prove of value to workers facing forced labour. The courts could be
empowered to directly award fair compensation for losses in wages as well
as for pain and suffering. Transposition of the EU Directive (2009/52/EC),
from which both the UK and Ireland have opted out, could also enable noncompliant workers to secure restitution of unpaid wages even where they
are removed from the country. These measures could reduce the economic
advantage to the unscrupulous employer of subjecting workers to forced
labour. This report supports the recommendation made by the Organisation
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) back in 2007 that states
should Consider elaborating or strengthening their legislation that offers
victims of trafficking for labour exploitation the possibility of obtaining
compensation for damage suffered, including, where appropriate, restitution
of wages owed to them.
The practice of not taking action against those who may have been
trafficked for document fraud or working without authorisation described in
the Netherlands national report may be of greater value to the workers. If
60
accompanied by some form of regularisation or other integrative measures, it

could help encourage workers to come forward.
Support
Some governments have used regularisation to attempt to reduce the
volume of undeclared work and exploitation. Where it has been generalised,
as in Italy, it is thought to have offered otherwise precarious workers a
route into the formal labour market. Where it has been restricted to specific
groups, as in France or Spain, it has been less beneficial. The national reports
support the view that such measures offer a better chance for workers to
move into decent work than measures associated with the NRMs.
Some social support mechanisms are provided in most countries for those
affected by sexual exploitation and trafficking offences, and social actors
appear to be extending these informally to include those subject to labour
exploitation. This is welcome, but as the Irish ICTU/MRCI (2011) report
points out, workers having endured forced labour need to have their exit
from forced labour facilitated. The French CNCDH makes a similar point:
The measures adopted must therefore provide the most vulnerable
individuals the opportunity to build a life apt to keep them safe from
trafficking and exploitation in the future. (CNCDH, 2009)
Local voluntary efforts (including those of trade unions) can provide legal
advice on employment and migration matters, but support for those
experiencing abusive labour exploitation is rarely systematic.
Perhaps the key lesson is that the stronger the extent of labour market
regulation and associated inspection and enforcement powers, the more
likely it is that forced labour practices will be detected, and that those
subjected to it will be offered potentially acceptable routes to restitution.
Conclusions
61
8Implications for
the UK
As shown in the Introduction (Section 1), for the
government, sufficient provision already exists,
including provisions for victims of trafficking under
the NRM, and for other workers under existing
employment legislation. It is highly unlikely that any
fresh protective legislation will be considered in the
near future, by the current Coalition government at
least.
For this report, then, the question is, how might existing provisions in law
and practice be better used by regulators, workers facing forced labour
practices and those engaged in supporting them? The evidence from the
responses elsewhere in Europe suggests that there may be a benefit in
approaching forced labour as an element (albeit an aberrant one) of the
labour market, rather than as an element of trafficking with all its emphasis
on immigration offences. This is not to downplay the criminal element of the
offence, but to recognise that the economic aspects of work are of crucial
importance to workers, and this is just as true for those exposed to forced
labour as to those facing lesser forms of exploitation.
1 One way of combating forced labour is to reduce the economic
attraction of this form of exploitation. This requires both retributive
remedies against exploitative employers (enforcing statutory wages rates,
and reclaiming unpaid wages, for example), and encouraging workers
concerned to come forward for assistance. Workers who face problems
such as withholding of identity documents, unpaid wages, excessive
working hours and threats of denunciation should have access to
remedies which they can pursue themselves without putting themselves
at risk of prosecution for immigration offences or forcible removal. Clear
guidance that certain employment rights cannot be nullified simply by
the employers unlawful actions could help in bringing more cases to
tribunals.
62
2 Penalties against perpetrators of forced labour should not be restricted

to criminal sanctions, but should include recovery of unpaid wages and
compensation for damages from employers to workers. The idea of main
contractor liability for industries with significant use of subcontracting
chains and false self-employment (such as construction and agriculture)
should certainly be examined. This was also a strong point made by
La Strada and Anti-Slavery International in a report produced by the
Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe (Moritz and Tsourdi,
2009). They argued that it would do justice to the victims, offer redress
for damages as well as unpaid wages and reduce the economic attraction
of forced labour to employers. Our research into practicalities in nine
EU member states supports this as shown in the section on supply
chains, forced labour practices may not be many steps away from the
mainstream economy, even in developed countries. In the absence of
any sign of the UK government taking this up, however, trade unions
and NGOs should consider how they could develop litigation strategies
(as pursued by CODETRAS in France and MRCI in Ireland) and the
organising approaches adopted on occasion by trade unions in the
Netherlands and France.
3 The absence of a general labour inspectorate in the UK, combined with
restricted budgets for the Health and Safety Executive and National
Minimum Wage Inspectorate, means that any potential role these bodies
might play in detecting forced labour is restricted. Figures for 2009
showed that the UK had fewer inspectors compared to the workforce
size than Germany, France, Spain, Poland, Latvia or Italy (the Netherlands,
Ireland and Sweden were not included in the study) (SYNDEX, 2012). An
obvious answer might be to increase the size of the Health and Safety
Executive, National Minimum Wage Inspectorate and Gangmasters
Licensing Authority.
4 At the very least, working time enforcement could be improved. While
the restrictions in the UK are less stringent than in most other EU
states, there are still effective limits on working time 48hours per
week where no individual opt-out has been signed, and requirements
for daily and weekly breaks. The former is currently the responsibility of
the Health and Safety Executive. Were the latter to be brought into their
remit, and both actually pursued as a matter of policy, the chances of
detection of forced labour practices would be enhanced.
5 Temporary residence permits or bridging visas may help those victims
who have irregular immigration status, but they still leave workers
in a vulnerable position if they restrict the right to work, or depend
on preparedness to testify against perpetrators. Residence and work
permits for those thought to have been subjected to forced labour would
encourage both integration and whistle-blowing on the part of the
worker involved. Mass regularisation would also reduce abuse of all sorts
for some groups of migrant workers, although many workers subject to
forced labour in the UK are EU citizens (see, for example, Scott etal.,
2012). There have also been recent cases relating to vulnerable adults
who are British being subjected to forced labour, in construction, for
example, and regularisation would not resolve their problems.
6 Humanitarian assistance should be available for those subjected to
forced labour, as should education and training (perhaps including work
Implications for the UK
63
placements or mentoring), particularly in English and employment

rights. Medical and other advisers should have no obligation to report
undocumented workers, as this may reduce the likelihood of them
seeking help, which could aid them to escape their exploitation.
7 Unlike the states studied here, there is a specific forced labour offence in
the UK, meaning that the offence can be pursued outside the NRM, and
without the need for any consideration of movement (be it internal or
international). Benefits could be gained from ensuring that training and
information regarding the offence and its interpretation are made widely
available to assist inspection and enforcement agencies, NGOs and civil
society organisations (including trade unions) to detect forced labour
related cases. In doing so, enforcement agencies should be trained in
methods that do not victimise the workers concerned, but permit them
to play a role in pursuing their own cases.
8 The development of awareness-raising campaigns on abusive
exploitation aimed at the wider public should be considered. Greater
coordination between various inspection and enforcement agencies may
also improve the chances of detecting forced labour. However, since
the involvement of immigration authorities may increase the reluctance
of those subject to forced labour to cooperate or identify themselves
as being subject to forced labour, the enforcement and investigation
of workers rights should be carried out independently from those
authorities charged with border controls.
9 If trade unions were to be granted the right to pursue cases in tribunals
on behalf of members or groups of members, the difficulties of securing
judgments where workers may be highly mobile or afraid to present
themselves could be substantially reduced. However, even without this
right to representation, good legal precedence can be established where
unions and legal advisers are able to work with those groups who might
be susceptible to forced labour practices.
10 The shortages of secure accommodation and resources for subsistence
reported in most of the national reports clearly hamper attempts to
investigate cases of forced labour. In a time of cuts in public spending and
retrenchment for advice agencies and trade unions, finding the resources
for this will be difficult. But even relatively small projects in other
European countries have demonstrated that they can reach significant
numbers of those experiencing forced labour. By doing so, they can both
assist some into self-activity as well as providing vital illustration of a
phenomenon which, left to the legislative process alone, would remain
hidden.
The findings in other countries show that the confidence expressed by the
UK government representatives that adequate protections already exist
in the labour market is likely to be misplaced. If labour markets that are
substantially more regulated than the UKs can still display alarming numbers
of forced labour cases (and we are sure that all the measures underrepresent this), how much more must be going on in the UK, undetected,
uncompensated and unpunished?
64
Notes
1
Sometime known as the Palermo Convention (UN, 2004).
The free movement area of the European Union.
The UK renounced this convention in 1983.
UK and Ireland have opted out of this directive.
In certain industries, and in the case of UK, for all workers agreeing to sign an opt-out.
Delphi methodology aims at producing a consensus amongst a wide group of experts. In the
context of the ILO/EU study, this involved surveys in 2008 amongst anti-trafficking experts
from the 27 EU Member States, including police, government, academics and researchers,
NGOs, international organisations, labour inspectorates, trade unions and judiciaries. Through
this method they ranked in importance the indicators agreed to be the most significant.
In English: Remembrance, responsibility and the future. Established in 2000 to deal with
compensation to former forced labourers.
65
References
Anderson, B. and Rogaly, B. (2004) Forced Labour and Migration to the UK. Oxford: COMPAS for
the Trade Union Congress
Arbeitsinspectie (2011) Yearly report of the Labour Inspection 2010, www.arbeidsinspectie.nl/
Images/AI%20Jaarverslag%202010_compleet%20(webversie)_DEF_tcm290-303461.pdf
Bussadori, V. etal. (2009) Sfruttamento Lavorativo in Alcuni Territori della Regione Emilia-Romagna: Il
Fenomeno, gli Interventi [Labour Exploitation in Several Territories in the Emilia-Romagna Region:
The Phenomenon and Interventions]. Materiali di documentazione, no.36. Bologna: Regione
Emilia-Romagna
Carchedi, F. (ed.) (2010) Schiavit di Ritorno [Slavery of Return]. Santarcangelo di Romagna:
Maggioli Editore
CNCDH (Commission nationale consultative des droits de lhomme) (2009) La Traite et
LExploitation des tres Humains en France [Trafficking and Exploitation of Human Beings in
France]. Paris: CNCDH
Cremers, J. (2011) In Search of Cheap Labour in Europe. Brussels: Construction Labour Research/
EFBWW/International Books
ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) (2005) Case of Siliadin v. France, Judgement. Strasbourg:
ECHR, 26July
European Commission (2010) Detailed Report on the Implementation by Member States of Directive
2003/88/EC (Working Time Directive). Commission Staff Working Paper SEC 2010 1611 final,
21December
European Commission (2012) The EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human
Beings 20122016. COM(2012) 286 final
ICTU (Irish Congress of Trade Unions)/MRCI (Migrant Rights Centre Ireland) (2011) A Framework
for Tackling Forced Labour in Ireland. Dublin: June
Follmar-Otto, P. and Rab, H. (2009) Human Trafficking in Germany: Strengthening Victims Human
Rights. Berlin: German Institute for Human Rights
Guardian (2011) Coalition refuses to ratify UN measure protecting domestic workers, 15June 2011
ILO (International Labour Organization) (2009) Operational Indicators of Trafficking in Human
Beings. Results from a Delphi Survey Implemented by the ILO and the European Commission.
September
ILO (2010) Labour Inspection in Europe: Undeclared Work, Migration, Trafficking. Working Document
No. 7. Labour Administration and Inspection Programme. Geneva: ILO, January
ILO (2012) ILO Global Estimate of Forced Labour. Geneva: ILO
Jaksic, M. (2008) Figures de la Victime de la Traite des tres Humains: de la Victime Idale a la
Victime Coupable. Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, 1(14), pp.127146
Jorens, Y., Peters, S. and Houwerzijl, M. (2012) Study on the Protection of Workers Rights in
Subcontracting Processes in the European Union. Ghent: Ghent University, Department of Social
Law, June
66
KOK-Informationsdienst (2012) Arbeitsausbeutung und Menschenhandel zum Zweck der

Arbeitsausbeutung Aktuelle Entwicklungen [Labour Exploitation and Trafficking in Human Beings
for the Purpose of Labour Exploitation Current Developments]. www.kok-buero.de/fileadmin/
user_upload/medien/KOK_informiert/Infodienst_2012.pdf
Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2011) Press briefing, 27April. www.mfa.gov.lv/lv/Jaunumi/
PazinojumiPresei/2011/aprilis/29-3/
Leniewski, J. and Krajewska, B. (2011) Rola Pastwowej Inspekcji Pracy w Identyfikacji Przypadkw
Handlu Ludmi do Pracy Przymusowej Oraz Przypadkw amania Praw Pracowniczych [The
Role of State Work Inspection in Identifying Cases of Trafficking of Forced Labour and Cases
of Violations of Labour Rights]. Presentation of Labour Inspectorate to Solidarnsoc. www.
solidarnosc.org.pl/uploads/oryginal/0/2/04747_PIP.pdf
Moritz, T. and Tsourdi, L. (eds) (2009) Trafficking for Forced Labour in Europe: Emerging Challenges
Emerging Responses. Brussels: Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME)
NERA (National Employment Rights Authority) (2007) Code of Practice for Protecting Persons
Employed in Other Peoples Homes, Dublin: NERA. www.lrc.ie/documents/publications/
codes/10PersonsEmployedinHomes.pdf
OIM Italia (2010) Praesidium V. Rapporto sulla Situazione dei Migranti Presenti nella Provincia di
Caserta e nellarea di Castelvolturno [Report on the Situation of Migrants in the Province of
Caserta and the Area of Castelvolturno]. Rome: OIM Italia
OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe) (2007) Combating Trafficking in
Human Beings for Labour Exploitation. Decision No. 8/07, 30November
Reggio Emilia (2009) Piano di Zona per la salute e il benessere sociale 20092011. Programma
attuativo 2009 [Plan for Health and Welfare 20092011], Bologna: Distretto di Reggio Emilia
Scott, S., Craig, G. and Geddes, A. (2012) Experiences of Forced Labour in the UK Food Industry. York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
SCN (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) (2009) 27October, LJN: BI7097
Skrivankova, K. (2010) Between Decent Work and Forced Labour: Examining the Continuum of
Exploitation. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, November
SYNDEX (2012) A Mapping Report on Labour Inspection Services in 15 European Countries. Brussels:
SYNDEX for European Federation of Public Service Unions
TNS OBOP (2010) Public Awareness of Risks Involved in Human Trafficking and Taking Up Work
Abroad. Warsaw: TNS OBOP, British Embassy
UN (United Nations) (2004) United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and
the Protocols thereto. New York: UN
Visser, J. (2009) Industrial Relations in Europe 2008. Luxembourg: European Commission
References
67
Appendix A
Research project partners
Country report
and case studies
Organisation
Partners
Working Lives Research Institute

(WLRI)
Nick Clark
Civic Forum
Nicholas Bell (case study)
Germany
WLRI
Dr Janroj Keles
Ireland
WLRI
Professor Sonia McKay
Italy
University Ca Foscari, Venice
Fabio Perocco
Latvia
University of Latvia, Riga
Aija Lulle
The Netherlands
Raboud University, Nijmigen/Tilburg

University
Dr Mijke Houwerzjil
Dr Connie Rijken
Poland
Weronika Kloc-Nowak
Spain
Gabinet dEstudi Socials, Barcelona
Xavier Vallv
Paolo Leotti
Sweden
Goteborg and Linkoping Universities Christer Thorqvist

Professor Charles Woolfson
France
68
Appendix B
Methodology
Early on in the project the research team, through email collaboration and
Skype teleconferencing, agreed the parameters for the national research. A
template for the national reports was designed in order to ensure that the
main themes were addressed (as far as possible) in each case. Each partner
conducted:
a review of academic and grey literature, evaluations, policy and legal
documents from the government, trade unions, NGOs, enforcement
bodies (including legal practitioners and advice organisations), covering
criminal, civil and employment rights remedies, social welfare, access to
decent (regularised) employment and immigration support;
analysis of the available data on forced labour and informal labour
markets, including where possible (and it would not be in all cases) details
of countries of origin of the workers concerned;
a brief analysis of the context of forced labour as perceived by
government, employers and in the media;
a case study from each country giving an example of good, innovative or
illustrative practice identified during the research.
It was agreed that we should look in particular for examples of support that
permitted or assisted those facing forced labour to participate in their own
defence and enforcement of rights, or strategies developed by particular
communities to solve the more serious employment-related problems
(including forced labour) that workers from those communities might face.
A series of national reports was then prepared, one for each of the nine
selected countries, based on the agreed template (see below), and including
the case study. It was recognised early on that most policy relating to forced
labour had been developed in the context of combating human trafficking,
and this was usually seen in the context of border offences. To gain a clearer
idea of how national systems operated when confronted with forced labour
that did not involve trafficking, partners were also asked to consider a
specific hypothetical scenario (see below). This presented a case where the
issue of crossing borders was separated from forced labour practices, in order
to better compare how national systems would respond to the forced labour
practices outside of the trafficking context.
Initial findings and conclusions were drawn together and presented, along
with summaries of the case studies, at a one-day seminar held in London
in early July 2011. There were 27 participants including members of the
69
research team, together with experts and practitioners drawn from the nine
chosen member states.
In preparing the national reports, we looked in particular for support that
fell under three headings:
employment issues
social support
provisions relating to immigration (or trafficking as a cross-border
phenomenon).
The country studies showed that there were a variety of definitions of

extreme abuse of workers, some of which encompassed forced labour, some
of which did not. We were looking for practical examples of support that was
(or could be) available to those subject to forced labour. It was apparent that
such support was unlikely to be available only to such subjects for example,
the reclaiming of unpaid wages was likely to be a mechanism much used by
various sections of the workforce.
In terms of statistics on the extent of forced labour, we knew that
we would be hampered by the lack of nationally accepted definitions or
programmes to identify forced labour. We therefore had to seek the best
available proxies that might indicate the likely presence of forced labour
practices.
The partners responsible for producing the national reports came from
a variety of backgrounds and specialities, including law, sociology, labour
markets, migration and trade unions. The diversity of the resulting reports
reflects this variety and provides a wealth of detail. This is in itself, we hope,
a rich resource for those wishing to understand better the occurrence
and responses to forced labour. The case studies display a similar variety
in approach. Both national reports and case studies went into substantial
detail regarding the context and practical indicators of forced labour. They
are significant documents in their own right, and are therefore published
separately from this report on both the JRF and Working Lives Research
Institute (WLRI) websites (see www.jrf.org.uk and www.workinglives.org).
Using factor analysis, an initial synthesis report was produced from
the nine national reports. This was subsequently revised and edited in
consultation with colleagues in WLRI and JRF to reflect the key issues and
findings set out in the final version (see opposite).
Hypothetical scenario for national reports

Worker X is a non-EEA national who arrived legally (on a visitors visa), but
owes money to an agent back home who facilitated his visa and travel.
He works initially in a restaurant for an employer who is associated with
the agent, but the restaurant goes bust and the employer leaves the country.
Worker X is still in debt and worried about threats from the agent to his
family back home.
He gets a job as a cleaner with another employer (not associated with
the agent) who is aware that X is not entitled to work in the country. The
employer employs X under identity documents/social security registration
from a previous worker, but takes Xs passport.
X lives in a flat owned by the employer, sharing a room with four other
cleaners. The flat is also occupied by a supervisor, who monitors their
activities. X works for up to 14hours per day, and rarely gets time off. He is
paid at approximately half the appropriate minimum wage, but sometimes
does not get paid for several weeks at a time. He pays approximately
40per cent of his wages in rent, and pays 30per cent back to the agent.
70
Responses to forced labour in the EU: Reporting template

Country
Partner contact details
BACKGROUND (In this section please provide a summary of the national discourse and
context of forced labour, including key legislation relating to forced labour or its indicators
as distinct from trafficking, any major research or policy reports, and the way in which the
issue is approached by media, government, trade unions and NGOs)
Available data (Extent and location industrial and geographical of forced labour,
relationship with informal labour markets, enforcement actions taken. Include where
possible details of countries of origin of the workers concerned)
Remedies for forced labour (Include details of any measures possible under criminal, civil
and/or employment law, access to regularised work, identity and powers of enforcement
bodies, how the costs of remedies are met, what risks such remedies might pose to workers
and scope for action by workers experiencing forced labour)
Support available to those having been subjected to forced labour (Access to social
welfare, e.g. housing, respite, language support, advice, access to regularised work, how
the costs of support are met, what risks accessing such support might pose to workers, and
scope for action by workers experiencing forced labour. Include actions by NGOs, migrant
groups, unions etc.)
Case study (to be identified)
Final comments (Here we are interested in your assessment of the effectiveness of the
support and enforcement mechanisms set out above, and of differences between the
experiences of men and women facing forced labour)
Appendix B
71
He is sometimes able to send money home, but as the wages become less
frequently paid, he finds it hard to survive.
What rights does this worker have:
1 in theory and
2 in practice, to:
a) regularise his stay in the country
b) obtain unpaid wages/a minimum wage
c) get recompensed for excess working hours, and lack of paid holidays
d) recover his passport
e) if he escapes/leaves the job (or is rescued),
vi) to get emergency accommodation,
vii) access to healthcare,
viii) access to social security,
ix) to become a legal worker?
What penalties might be imposed on his employer, and how might the
worker benefit from them?
72
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the members of the project team who worked
so hard to prepare the national reports and the many experts who gave
them the benefit of their knowledge, Professor Steve Jefferys at WLRI and
Louise Woodruff at JRF who assisted with editing, and Klara Skrivankova who
commented on the text. Furthermore, the participants at the conference in
London contributed valuable insights to the final report, but the contents and
opinions in this report remain the authors own.
73
About the author

Nick Clark is Senior Research Fellow at the Working Lives Research Institute
(WLRI), London Metropolitan University. He has been active at many levels
of the trade union movement, from shop steward to the TUC International
Department, where he contributed to the development of policy and practice
on migrant workers. He was a member of the Gangmasters Licensing
Authority board for 4years.
At WLRI he has conducted research into temporary agency work,
contract cleaning and migrant domestic workers, and is completing a study of
the paid work undertaken by university students in seven EU countries.
74
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part

of its programme of research and innovative development projects,
which it hopes will be of value to policy makers, practitioners and
service users. The facts presented and views expressed in this report
are, however, those of the author[s] and not necessarily those of JRF.
A pdf version of this publication is available from the JRF
website (www.jrf.org.uk). Further copies of this report, or any
other JRF publication, can be obtained from the JRF website
(www.jrf.org.uk/publications) or by emailing publications@jrf.org.uk
A CIP catalogue record for this report is available from the British
Library.
All rights reserved. Reproduction of this report by photocopying
or electronic means for non-commercial purposes is permitted.
Otherwise, no part of this report may be reproduced, adapted, stored in
a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
London Metropolitan University 2013

First published 2013 by the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation
ISBN: 978 1 85935 961 7 (pdf)
Typeset by The Policy Press
Joseph Rowntree Foundation

The Homestead
40 Water End
York YO30 6WP
www.jrf.org.uk

Forced Labour Europe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forced Labour Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT

Based on studies in nine European countries, this

Those who have experienced forced labour are likely to be working in

The twin aims of enforcing immigration controls and submitting trafficking

Detecting and tackling forced labour in Europe

To contextualise what can be learned for practice in the UK from that in

inspections, to private households employing domestic workers.

What is forced labour?

Detecting and tackling forced labour in Europe

Table 1: Selected labour exploitation indicators relevant to forced labour

Deceived about conditions of work

Bad living conditions

Threat to impose even worse working conditions

Source: ILO (2009)

a useful heuristic list of what constitutes abuse. An example of the types

recent accession countries from Europes north (Sweden), south (Spain),

Phase 2: Researching and writing up one case study of good or illustrative

Detecting and tackling forced labour in Europe

classifications, as shown in Table 2 and, significantly as we shall see, suggest

Description and source

Completed cases involving charges of

Trafficked for labour exploitation (Italia Caritas)

Investigations for slavery (Article 600 of the

Cases of severe labour exploitation making use

Complaints of abuse made by domestic

Exploited migrant workers assisted by MRCI

Fines issued for illegal employment in

Fines in processing industries

Fines in arts and entertainment

Fines in wholesale distribution

Fines in personal services

Fines in agriculture, forestry, fisheries

Trafficking victims (primarily for prostitution),

Forced labour investigations

Forced labour investigations (two convictions

Court decisions on labour exploitation

Detecting and tackling forced labour in Europe

Description and source

Trafficking victims (all types of exploitation)

Inspections detecting abuses of migrant

Assisted victims of forced labour under

Victims of trafficking for labour exploitation

Various victims of trafficking and exploitation

Non-payment of, or manifestly inadequate,

Working or living conditions contrary to

Non-payment of, or manifestly inadequate,

Working or living conditions contrary to

Non-payment of, or manifestly inadequate,

Working or living conditions contrary to

Domestic workers assisted by CCEM

together, however, they illustrate the worrying presence of forced labour

The presence of forced labour in Europe

Box 1: Trafficking and forced labour in German strawberry

Detecting and tackling forced labour in Europe

Box 2: An asparagus criminal in the Netherlands

The presence of forced labour in Europe

Under public pressure, the Public Prosecution Service began criminal

Detecting and tackling forced labour in Europe

particular sector connection, as with Thai berry pickers in northern Sweden

The presence of forced labour in Europe

of cases of exploitation (CNCDH, 2009). There is also some evidence that

Table 3: Industries where forced labour is referenced in national reports

References in national reports